Howard's IR Legislation: Double Jeopardy for Women:
An Interview with Janet Giles

Anne Crawford

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Howard’s so called Workchoices legislation poses the biggest threat to the standard of living of workers in Australia in living memory. It needs also to be acknowledged that the new legislation will disproportionately impact on the lowest paid workers, and especially on women.

I recently explored this topic in an interview with Janet Giles, the first woman to hold the position of Secretary, SA Unions. Janet was formerly President, Australian Education Union and Deputy President of the Federal Australian Education Union. Janet is justifiably proud of her achievements as a feminist and union activist. She is convinced that unions currently constitute the most important movement in Australia to effect social change.

Janet sees women as the most vulnerable group in terms of Howard’s industrial agenda because women constitute the majority of lowest paid and casual employees. Women collectively are more reliant than any other group on annual minimum wage cases, which under the previous system delivered real improvements for childcare workers, cleaners, retail workers and other women in the service sector. Women are the most likely to be forced onto individual contracts or Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) because so many women work as casuals in industries where there is little bargaining power, and often work on their own or in small groups. The appalling wages and working conditions of women employed in the fashion industry have been well documented, where extraordinarily low remuneration rates are not uncommon for the makers of haute couture garments that are sold for hundreds of dollars. Many of these women work at home and have virtually no collective bargaining power.

Janet emphasised the nexus between new welfare, family and industrial legislation which she described as representing a "triple whammy" for single mothers. Women with dependent children over the age of six will be required to work. They will be in breach of entitlements to benefits if they refuse a job because it is offered on the basis of an individual contract. In addition their incomes may well be reduced because of legislative changes that result in diminished maintenance payments when children spend time with their fathers. Ultimately many single mothers in lower paid industries are likely to be poorer once in the workforce than they would be at home, especially when faced with the considerable costs of childcare and transport. Women’s issues have always been difficult to highlight on industrial agendas. Janet spoke of the struggle to ignite public debate about the balance of family and work and the battle waged by unions and equal opportunity activists to win paid maternity leave in recent years. Australia lags way behind almost every other developed country except the United States in maternity leave provisions. The Howard legislation allows only for unpaid leave up to 12 months, undermining very hard fought gains and certainly making it more difficult for lower paid workers to embark on parenthood without facing long periods of poverty. This is particularly problematic in terms of Australia’s falling birth rate and ageing population.

The Workchoices legislation poses huge problems for Australians already struggling to achieve some sort of balance between work and family time. Many will be forced to work longer hours or take on a second or third job, with the 38 hours working week averaged over a year, and the loss of overtime and penalty rates. Public holidays and weekends will be increasingly lost as shared time, which will not only impact negatively on family relationships, but on community activities. Church leaders have voiced similar concerns to union leaders, in highlighting the potential paucity of opportunity for people to congregate and share companionship.

Janet stressed that the recent changes to unfair dismissal laws will adversely affect women, because they frequently work for small companies. She cited examples of several women sacked in South Australia in the first week the new legislation was proclaimed. These women were given no warning and no reason for their dismissal, and had never had issues of work performance raised prior to their employment being terminated.

Contrary to popular belief, sexual harassment is still prevalent in many workplaces. Contract and casual employees are the least likely to complain if subjected to this kind of treatment and they will be even less likely to express objections in the atmosphere of fear and intimidation the Workchoices legislation breeds, where workers can be dismissed without any explanation being required. Janet cited an example of a recently widowed woman being sexually harassed and then sacked since the legislation was proclaimed, and the difficulties involved in proving that the woman lost her job because she did not respond to her employer’s sexual advances.

Winston Churchill once stated "an optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity, a pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity. I am an optimist; it does not seem too much use being anything else." Although Janet’s political beliefs are radically different in almost every respect from Churchill’s, she would no doubt agree with this perspective. In concluding our interview, Janet emphasised that the Howard government’s draconian industrial relations legislation is ironically a source of hope and has had the immediate effect of increasing union membership. When people are up against the wall, their choices are confined to simply giving up or actively resisting. Many are choosing the latter.

SA Unions is working closely with community groups and women’s organisations to link women to the collective support and protection that unions can offer. For the first time in South Australia, a women’s conference inclusive of all unions and a broad range of community groups is being organised for mid 2006 to develop a unifying, comprehensive campaign to combat the class and gender implications of Howard’s industrial relations, welfare and "family" legislation.

Janet advised all women to take up the fight personally by talking to everyone they know about the impact of the Workchoices legislation. Given that women like talking and are good at it, this is a very potent strategy! She also urged women to build the strength of their unions in their workplaces as their fundamental protection and predicted that the creation of a stronger women’s movement in difficult times would result in an improvement to women’s lives generally Janet’s final statement was that the key aim of unions at present is to oust the federal Liberal government. I am sure that every Australian who is committed to getting women’s issues back on the political agenda would concur that this is a necessary first step.