Industrial Relations and the Changing Cultural Identity - Article Example

Author] [Course Code] [Instructor] [Date] Industrial Relations and the Changing Cultural Identity There is so much literature presenting the workplace as an avenue for cultural dynamism. Because culture and society is seen as mutually interacting factors, there is basis for saying that both factors are actually “agents” of change. Society changes because of actual change in culture. Institutions in society are restructured to suit the changes in its cultural environment. Inability to change means inability to adapt to important changes. This will lead to social strain. The same applies to culture. Society provides the stimuli to change. Once the prevalent culture becomes inefficient (as what would economists put) or immaterial (as what would utilitarian theorists would put), societal institutions would provide the impetus to change. Culture must go hand to hand with existing social structures to be semi-permanent. Thus, it can be both culture and social institutions are agents of change. The former is semi-permanent and multifaceted in terms of scope, the former actor-oriented. Thus, in this paper, an examination of “current” Australian identity will be examined. This is necessary in order to assess the importance of the current changes. An examination of factors will also be presented. An assumption though is made. The primary variable cause here is the overall changes in industrial relations in Australia. The factors will be enumerated and examined. The degree though of correlation will not be discussed in this paper since it would involve highly statistical procedures. The last part is an analysis of the changes in Australian cultural identity. Some important literature on Australian industrial conditions will also be presented. The focus, though, here is the polarization of work families in Australia. An examination of federal wage differential will also be discussed. Australian Multiculturalism Identity What does it mean to be an Australian? This is a highly complex question that needs an equally sophisticated answer. It can be said that Australian cultural identity is a mixture of different cultures and worldviews. For one, Aborigines in Australia were able to establish permanent homes in the continent centuries before the coming of the British. When the British came, they transformed Australia into a penal colony, and then into a state fashioned after Great Britain. The aborigines were casted away by the new “owners.” The British introduced a series of assimilation laws that called for granting of Australian citizenship to Europeans (who were living in Australia for at least 10 years and of British descent) – the aborigines were ignored initially. Many of these “citizens regarded themselves as Australians. They also considered Australia as their natural homeland. Hence, what we call today as Australian culture and identity were initially derived from British culture – songs, literature, poetry, and architecture (language perhaps is the most clear indicator). However, the adherence of Australian identity to British ways changed as European migration to the country increased at the latter half of the 19th century. Almost a third of the population of Australia at that time was non-British European descent. This created a problem for the Commonwealth of Australia. The problem lies in the redefinition of Australian culture and identity. However, because of the First World War and the preoccupation of the Australian government in addressing its trade deficits, the problem had been totally ignored. Until recently, social scientists found out that Australia is a “hotspot” of different cultures; a kind of melting spot. The general sense of this geo-cultural definition of Australia is: Australian culture and identity is a multiplicity of different cultures, bringing forth an increasing diversity of institutional patterns, under the guidance of an open society (Holton, 1997). Three things can be derived from this definition. First Australian culture and identity is the result of cultural interaction of different ethnic groups. Second, this cultural multiplicity brings forth different institutional patterns. Lastly, “openness” is the operative word of Australian society. Hence, “it has sometimes been claimed that Australia's national identity is not as strong as the national identity of countries that have experienced the trauma of invasion and civil war. While it is true that events of this kind have often been major reference points in the consolidation of a sense of national identity, they are not by any means the only processes by which identity emerge” (Holton, 1997: URL cited). This can be explained from a survey conducted by the National Social Science study entitled “National Identity: What Does It Take To Be "Truly Australian.” About 72% of the respondents said that feeling Australian was a very important factor in being an Australian (as against 23% who said that it was fairly important). Another 67% said that having an Australian citizenship was a very important factor in being an Australian (as against 23 % who said that it was fairly important). The heading above connotes that though most people in Australia regard themselves as Australian, they engaged themselves in pattern of livings (including family patterns and structures) based on their ethnicities (ethnic origin). Hence, there is therefore the need to find the commonalities of these cultures so as to enumerate the characteristics of Australian culture and to determine whether ethnicity, class distinction, or sexual preferences determines Australian family patterns. Herein are the characteristics of Australian culture: 1) open (that is, permeable to immigrants), 2) permits assimilation and at times amalgamation (the difference between the two will not be discussed), 3) adherence to the Western principle and value of liberalism, and 4) highly adaptive. When one says that a society is open, it generally means that such society is highly permeable to migrants as well as to innovation. It is wholly the opposite of a conservative society. When one says that a society permits assimilation, it generally means that the society is willing to incorporate individual cultural tastes and preferences into its own system. Liberalism is a Western invention. Adherence to liberalism means that individual rights and freedoms are protected by the state. The individual is left open in its own development. Being highly adaptive is generally the result of being open. Because innovation is the operative word of an open society, any changes in its system would correspond to a major shift on its means procurement (AGIL framework of Talcott Parsons), that is, the means of achieving societal goals. Class Differences: The Factor of Consideration Notwithstanding the multiplicity of cultural identities in Australian culture, it can be said that ethnicity plays a very little part in structuring family patterns. For the most part, as one views Australian history, it is class differences that brought forth different family patterns in Australia. Because almost all people in Australia (except the aborigines) believed that one’s ethnic origin is an unimportant (as implied in the survey) in shaping Australian identity, only one factor is left for consideration: class differences. The hypothesis then is: class differences (in terms of income, status, or generally wealth) are a major determinant of structuring family patterns. While historical verification is needed in supporting or disproving this hypothesis, it is more important to draw from current researches on the development of family patterns (in Australia). Renda (2003:16) noted that the growing growth of part-time employment has contributed to the developing polarization of families into “work poor” and “work rich” categories. The author noted that “the rise in the number of work poor families in Australia is partly due to lone-parent families becoming an increasingly common family type” (Renda, 2003:16). Nonetheless, the proportion of dependent children living in families with no employed parents rose by 7% (11% to 18%) in 1998. This was generally the result of an increasing unemployment rate in the country for the past two decades. The implication is: the increasing proportion of work-poor families in relation to families with no employed parents resulted to an increasing number of lone-parent families work type. The bases of the study were derived from a previous study by Burbidge and Sheehan (2001). The contents of the study were as follows: 1) the proportion of working mothers who are separated or divorced, 2) expansion of conventional definitions of work poor families, and 3) generally its relationship to the values of innovation and liberalism. Burbidge and Sheehan (2001) identified several family types in Australia from 1983 to 2000. The first one is called “couple mothers with non-employed partners.” About 64% of mothers with non-employed partners were unemployed in 2002. Fulltime mothers employed rose from 8.4 % in 1983 to 16.7% in 2000. The second type of family type (in terms of employment) is called “couple mother with employed partner.” Generally, most couple mothers in this family type were generally part-time workers; most of the partners were fulltime workers. The third type of family type based on unemployment is “couple fathers with non-employed partners.” It can be said that fulltime employment of couple fathers dropped from 82.5% in 1983 to 71.9% in 1993. The proportion though of unemployed couple father dropped significantly. The last is called “couple fathers with employed partners.” The proportion of such in the labor force also dropped; although such drop was almost insignificant. The categorization of family types was significantly economic in orientation unlike in studies conducted in Asia, Europe, or the United States. Borland et al (2001) discussed several factors why the development of family types in Australia is always linked with economics. Here are the major points of his paper. First, economic liberalism became the major tenet of Australian life since the British colonial rule. Second, the so-called Australian identity was nothing more than the aggregate or sum of the cultures assimilated (and hence became an insignificant factor in the development of Australian family types), and 3) British colonial rulers focused on streamlining social policies rather than economic ones (social policies that addressed assimilation – except for the aborigines) – economic policies were already laid out by the contours of economic liberalism. Industrial Relations in Australia: Past and Present Industrial relations in Australia have a long history. After the passage of Conciliation and Arbitrary Act of 1904, registered unions were given the right to enforce payment transfers. Payment transfers include salary rewards, insurance, and other necessities accrued to individual employees. Unions were also given the right to access conciliation and arbitration. This gave unions the power to direct reward changes for specified work conditions. This right though was limited to registered unions. Union preference clauses were also implemented in hiring and firing decisions. Those who belonged to registered unions had the privilege of working upward in the corporate ladder or of salary increases. This instance also protected the jurisdiction of trade unions from other rival organizations such as chambers of commerce and employers’ guilds. The outcomes of the changes in Australian industrial relations varied from literature to literature. Some literature argued that the so-called “union preference clauses” were a stimulus to the high unemployment rate of Australia in the early 1970’s. Some literature argued that the “overprotection” of trade unions prompted foreign investors to shift their capital base from Australia to some Asian countries like South Korea and Taiwan. Most literatures though observed that: 1) Compulsory arbitration did not succeed in ensuring industrial peace. Most firms resisted the change by limiting their level of employment (hiring levels). By limiting their level of employment, the firms were able to slightly increase the unemployment rate of the country. The federal government was then forced to limit the arbitration rights of the workers (in specified terms); 2) And, the policy helped promoted a low-productivity working culture. Agriculture and mining fared well in the 1970’s but the industrial and manufacturing sectors stagnated. This productivity differential was the result of restrictive work practices. Task-based demarcation and minimum staffing levels were some of the restrictive policies enforced prior to the 1980’s. The management though was partially responsible for the flagging of the Australian economy in the 1970’s. Most managers of firms were obsessed of creating centralized systems of industrial relations, making it conducive to high levels of apathy. Most managers of firms handed down arbitration problems to third parties (courts, unions, and trade unions). This reduced the overall flexibility of management to maintain or upgrade its productivity levels. Strategic decision-making became a matter of employer-employee relations. Thus, the management became more and more acquainted with maintaining current work structures and resistant to important institutional changes (which might be necessary and beneficial). At the beginning of the 20th century, Australia reaped huge profits from commodity-based exports. Its trade surplus went up to 7.6%, making the whole economy a viable avenue for increased foreign investments (Australia – Economic Conditions 1: URL cited). The government, in order to maintain the economy’s level of export began subsidizing some sectors of the Australian economy. This generally led to several results: 1) Standard of living potentially increased twofold. The income derived from exports was used to increase spending on public utilities. Projects on social welfare also increased. The government’s aim was to increase productivity by increasing the standard of living of the economy’s workforce. In addition, because of the increase in the standard of living, workers would be forced to increase their level of productivity. The level of productivity here is defined as the “output translated to income per worker.” If each Australian worker increased his/her productivity level, then he/she would receive a higher income; 2) The Australian government implemented high tariffs to maintain its trade surplus. By charging imports with high levels of taxes, the Australian government would maintain its TOT (terms of trade). If such was the case, the living standard of the workers would be maintained. In short, the whole economy would be stimulated to produce more (increased GDP); 3) And, the Australian government created strict bargaining policies that would make “worker better off” at the expense of the firms. The Australian government believed that by increasing productivity, wage differentials will be compensated. Even if the firms reduced their employment level, productivity was maintained (due to higher yields per worker). In the 1970’s though, the world economy changed abruptly. The Iran-Iraq War reduced the overall supply of oil in the world market. The oil shocks greatly reduced the capacity of the Australian economy to sustain the high standard of living of its workforce. Balance of payments problems also resulted. The trade surplus of Australia decreased from 7.6% to about 3.9%. This created other successive problems. The level of revenues derived from imports decreased as many countries shifted their exports to countries that implemented low levels of tariffs. Potential domestic consumption decreased (decreasing level of marginal propensity to consume). This posed a real threat to the overall output of the economy as many firms reduced their output. Thus, successive Australian governments implemented a series of reforms to restructure the Australian economy. Here were as follows: 1) There was an overall reduction in tariffs. By reducing tariffs, the government could ensure an adequate level of imports necessary to stave domestic consumption. In addition, the reduction would also reduce the effects of the oil shocks to exporters, as the gap in the balance of payments would bridge; 2) The government also put the Australian dollar on a floating status. By doing so, Australia could export more products at relatively lower prices, enabling its trade surplus to increase. In addition, this would also serve as an impetus for the opening of the Australian economy to increased foreign investments; 3) Foreign competition was highly promoted by the government. By promoting foreign competition, quality products would flow to the country. Domestic firms would also be forced to upgrade their quality controls. This would enable the country to export more products to Europe and North America; 4) And, the government also promoted advances in information and communication technology. Advances in both information and communication technology would make the market more efficient and open to innovation. The reforms implemented by various Australian governments were successful. The economy was back on track. It was able to increase its consumption base by importing products and increasing its level of exports. Although the revenues derived by the government were clearly less than the revenues derived in the early 1970’s, domestic spending increased. The increase in domestic spending enabled firms to increase their capital base in the country. Foreign investment also increased. Recently, the federal government of Australia passed the Workplace Relations Act of 1996. The primary aims of the act were as follows: 1) Creation of flexible bargaining agreement policies – this would put the management and the registered unions on an equal footing in terms of determining wage differentials and other bargaining terms; 2) Restricting some of the powers of the AIRC (Australian Industrial Relations Commission) in terms of putting greater importance on enterprise bargaining; 3) And, enabling individual worker agreements with the management to take effect (the earlier version of the law did not consider individual agreement as binding and legal). The business community did not react much to the changes since the effects to the overall level of income remained unchanged. Income level of worker categories remained the same, although the unemployment rate fluctuated. Promise to the Workforce It can be said that the present condition of the Australian economy is “good” for both domestic workers and migrants. The increased standard of living (due to the reforms implemented by various Australian governments) increased worker welfare. It also enabled the government to increase its spending on social services (which was parallel with increases in domestic consumption – economic growth). Thus, it can be said that Australia, unlike in the 1970’s, is a developed country where development is continuous (unlike the United States which showed signs of flagging or stagnation). The Prime Minister, John Howard reiterated his plans for improving the Australian economy to the Australian Parliament (May 26, 2006). His plans were as follows: 1) The establishment of a national labor system – this would likely lead to the eventual decrease of the unemployment rate; 2) The creation of the Australian Fair Pay Commission – this body will be responsible for determining wage differential for all sectors of the Australian economy; 3) Passage of new unfair dismissal laws – exemption of firms with employees up to 100 from unfair dismissal laws; 4) Passage of legislations aiming to protect and enhance the freedom to contract; 5) The abolition of the no-advantage test – this will protect migrants from abuse in the workplace in terms of unfair wage differentials and eligibility to work; 6) Reward simplification – rewards will be distributed and determined more efficiently by both the management and the registered unions; 7) Passage of legislations that will curb piracy – this will ensure that products imported and exported in the country passed quality controls. This will also prevent underground markets in the country to flourish by destroying their supply lines. Industrial Relations and Australian Identity Much had been said separately of Australian identity and industrial relations but no true relationship was imminent in the paper. Australian multiculturalism, the result of decades of migration and foreign assimilation, was the cause of Australian prosperity. Cheap labor from developing countries enabled Australia to prosper (as in the case of the United States). In the 1920’s, migrants from Asian countries constituted about 30% of Australia’s workforce. Because these migrants received relatively lower wages than natural-born Australian workers, both the government and firms were able to increase their savings level. By increasing its level of savings, both the government and firms were able to increase their investment levels. The end result was economic growth. The increasing employment of foreign laborers (Australia suffered labor shortages at the beginning of the 20th century) led to several results: 1) Increased multiculturalism – Australia now is seen as a multicultural nation where identity is measured by means of filial attachment to the country – in other words, citizenship; 2) And, there was the development of several family types almost unknown in the 1950’s. The so-called “nuclear family type” diversified into several forms. The cause was economic development (this was also observable in many countries who modernized). It can be said that changes in Australian industrial relations led to cultural changes. Works Cited Australia – Economic Conditions. September 2005. http://www.infocus.sl.nsw.gov.au/res/sublist.cfm?subName=AUSTRALIA%20-%20ECONOMIC%20CONDITIONS. Retrieved on January 13, 2007. Borland, J. et al. Inequality and economic change. Work Rich and Work Poor: Inequality and Economic Change in Australia. Melbourne: Victoria University, 2001. Holton, Robert. Immigration, Social Cohesion and National Identity. Research Paper No. 1 1997-1998. Social Policy Group, September 1997. URL http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RP/1997-98/98rp01.htm. Retrieved January 13, 2007. Renda, Jennifer. Polarisation of families according: where does part-time employment. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2001. Read More