Journal of Industrial Relations

The paper examines industrial relations in the shipping industries of Australia and the United States. The two countries have to a considerable extent demonstrated polar approaches to the issue of reform in the context of ‘globalisation’ pressures. The extent to which local institutional factors offset the major trend towards the ‘globalisation’ of the shipping labour market is assessed. The paper argues that in shipping a range of differing policy approaches and reforms of the industrial relations system at the industry and national level do not appear to significantly check the ‘globalisation/internationalisation’ of the industry and the demise of the ‘national fleet’ with its citizen seafarers. The paper uses the somewhat over generalised concept and theory of ‘globalisation’ but seeks primarily to generate empirical data of relevance to the concept, rather than additional general remarks about ‘theory’.

For most of this century Australian industrial relations has been regarded as distinctive because of the prominent role performed by industrial tribunals in regulating disputes between the parties. The role of the mainstream federal tribunal was possibly at its zenith in the period 1983 to 1990, in implementing and policing an ‘orderly system’ of industrial relations regulation. By the latter part of the 1990s the role of this tribunal had substantially diminished. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission had come under increasing attack in the early 1990s over its failure to endorse a move to a new system of regulation known as enterprise bargaining. Both the Australian Labor Party and the Howard coalition government, after its election in March 1996, introduced legislation to reduce the Commission’s ability to perform its traditional functions. The paper draws on theories of regulation, in particular the insights of Joskow and Wilson, to explain the slippage and increasing decline in the role of the Commission.

What is the connection between labour market deregulation and earnings inequality? Using Victoria as an example, this paper explores this question making use of a recent workplace survey. The results of this analysis show that a low wage sector emerged in Victoria during the late 1990s and that it was concentrated around ‘Schedule 1A’ employees, those workers who failed to gain protection under Federal jurisdiction and had their wages and conditions determined by a combination of minimalist legislation and internal workplace regulation.

A much greater dispersion of minimum pay rates was evident in Schedule 1A work-places compared to those under Federal coverage. More seriously, workers under Schedule 1A coverage were more concentrated in low wage workplaces with inferior employment benefits. The association between low minimum pay rates and Schedule 1A coverage was examined in a multivariate analysis and was found to persist after controlling for a range of other factors.

These empirical findings suggest that labour market deregulation does indeed contribute to earnings inequality and that it also weakens the situation of those workers who are already structurally disadvantaged in the labour market.

The academic study of industrial relations has often been characterised as theoretically impoverished. This is despite the conceptual insights provided by a number of well-known writers including Australian academic Braham Dabscheck. Dabscheck has often addressed issues pertaining to industrial relations theory in his work over the last 20 or so years. His interest in this area culminated in the publication of his ‘general theory of (Australian) industrial relations’ in 1994. This article explores the development of Dabscheck’s ideas, as they relate to industrial relations theory, since 1977. Given his contribution to Australian industrial relations it is a valuable exercise in itself to trace this development. The article also subjects Dabscheck’s general theory to critical scrutiny. In particular, it questions his method of developing theory, challenges his theory’s key assumptions and argues that the explanatory and predictive qualities of his theory are weak. We conclude that the theory is of limited utility in terms of better understanding and explaining industrial relations.

Using data from 33 countries, the author shows that four dimensions of national culture explain 53% of the variation in union density. Union density is negatively correlated with both ‘masculinity’ and ‘power distance’. Implications of the results relate to institutional practices and public policy. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first article to examine the relationship between union density and national culture.

The experiences of five federally registered trade unions under the operation of the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cwlth) are canvassed. The findings indicate that four key issues have surfaced for these unions, Freedom of Association, Australian Workplace Agreements, award simplification and industrial action. The findings also indicate a divergence between theory and practice; the legislation has not been as devastating for these unions as many would have anticipated. The most likely explanation for this divergence lies in the individual characteristics of the unions and officials studied.