改善独立承办商的工作条件是否有“公共利益”?《1974年集体谈判和贸易惯例法》(联邦)

S. McCrystal
{"title":"改善独立承办商的工作条件是否有“公共利益”?《1974年集体谈判和贸易惯例法》(联邦)","authors":"S. McCrystal","doi":"10.1177/0067205x0903700204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In late 2006, the Commonwealth Parliament passed amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) that were designed to make it easier for small businesses to engage in collective bargaining. The amendments were sold as providing an opportunity for groups of small businesses to counteract inequality of bargaining power in their dealings with larger businesses. Despite the hype, in reality the changes only enable collective bargaining to take place more easily in cases where public benefit can be demonstrated. This article examines the new provisions over the first two years of their operation, and focuses in particular on their utility for groups of contractor workers who want to engage in collective bargaining in order to improve their working conditions. Utilising the few case studies available from the first 2 years of the provisions’ operation, the discussion examines the difficulties contractor workers face in establishing the ‘public benefit’ of their proposed bargaining arrangements. In particular, the discussion demonstrates that the collective bargaining provisions fail to offer any substantive benefits to groups of contractor workers. Any group of workers with existing market power will be denied the opportunity to collectively bargain due to their pre-existing market position. Workers without existing market power may be allowed to engage in collective bargaining but any proposed bargaining tactics cannot be coercive in effect. This means that in practice, the provisions do not offer a meaningful opportunity for contractor workers to engage in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions.","PeriodicalId":358833,"journal":{"name":"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is there a 'Public Benefit' in Improving Working Conditions for Independent Contractors? Collective Bargaining and the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)\",\"authors\":\"S. McCrystal\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205x0903700204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In late 2006, the Commonwealth Parliament passed amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) that were designed to make it easier for small businesses to engage in collective bargaining. The amendments were sold as providing an opportunity for groups of small businesses to counteract inequality of bargaining power in their dealings with larger businesses. Despite the hype, in reality the changes only enable collective bargaining to take place more easily in cases where public benefit can be demonstrated. This article examines the new provisions over the first two years of their operation, and focuses in particular on their utility for groups of contractor workers who want to engage in collective bargaining in order to improve their working conditions. Utilising the few case studies available from the first 2 years of the provisions’ operation, the discussion examines the difficulties contractor workers face in establishing the ‘public benefit’ of their proposed bargaining arrangements. In particular, the discussion demonstrates that the collective bargaining provisions fail to offer any substantive benefits to groups of contractor workers. Any group of workers with existing market power will be denied the opportunity to collectively bargain due to their pre-existing market position. Workers without existing market power may be allowed to engage in collective bargaining but any proposed bargaining tactics cannot be coercive in effect. This means that in practice, the provisions do not offer a meaningful opportunity for contractor workers to engage in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":358833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"93 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x0903700204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x0903700204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

2006年底,英联邦议会通过了《1974年贸易惯例法》(Cth)修正案,旨在使小企业更容易参与集体谈判。这些修正案的卖点是为小企业集团提供了一个机会,以抵消它们在与大企业打交道时议价能力的不平等。尽管大肆宣传,但实际上,这些变化只会使集体谈判更容易在可以证明公共利益的情况下进行。本文考察了新规定实施的头两年,并特别关注它们对希望参与集体谈判以改善其工作条件的承包商工人群体的效用。本文利用有关条文实施头两年的少数个案研究,探讨承办商在确定其拟议的议价安排的“公共利益”时所面临的困难。特别是,讨论表明,集体谈判条款未能给承包商工人群体带来任何实质性利益。由于现有的市场地位,任何具有现有市场力量的工人群体都将被剥夺集体谈判的机会。没有现有市场力量的工人可以被允许参与集体谈判,但任何提议的谈判策略都不能是强制的。这意味着,在实践中,这些规定并没有为承包商工人提供一个有意义的机会,让他们参与集体谈判以改善他们的工作条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is there a 'Public Benefit' in Improving Working Conditions for Independent Contractors? Collective Bargaining and the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
In late 2006, the Commonwealth Parliament passed amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) that were designed to make it easier for small businesses to engage in collective bargaining. The amendments were sold as providing an opportunity for groups of small businesses to counteract inequality of bargaining power in their dealings with larger businesses. Despite the hype, in reality the changes only enable collective bargaining to take place more easily in cases where public benefit can be demonstrated. This article examines the new provisions over the first two years of their operation, and focuses in particular on their utility for groups of contractor workers who want to engage in collective bargaining in order to improve their working conditions. Utilising the few case studies available from the first 2 years of the provisions’ operation, the discussion examines the difficulties contractor workers face in establishing the ‘public benefit’ of their proposed bargaining arrangements. In particular, the discussion demonstrates that the collective bargaining provisions fail to offer any substantive benefits to groups of contractor workers. Any group of workers with existing market power will be denied the opportunity to collectively bargain due to their pre-existing market position. Workers without existing market power may be allowed to engage in collective bargaining but any proposed bargaining tactics cannot be coercive in effect. This means that in practice, the provisions do not offer a meaningful opportunity for contractor workers to engage in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
TPP – Australian Section-by-Section Analysis of the Enforcement Provisions Uneasy or Accommodating Bedfellows? Common Law and Statute in Employment Regulation Equality Unmodified Wearing Thin: Restrictions on Islamic Headscarves and Other Religious Symbols Defending 'Terrorism': Justifications and Excuses for Terrorism in International Criminal Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1