Industrial Comparison Of China And Australia

Political Ideology and Industrial Relations

Discuss About The Industrial Comparison Of China And Australia.

Although the ILO has defined the way industrial relations need to be run internationally. Countries have different approaches to such relations depending on the political ideology of the state and other characteristics that define the system of government that exists in the country. In most cases the government of the day defines and shaped the industrial relations that exist and any other privileges that workers and employers enjoy in a given country (Chang 2015, p. 3). The fact that the government are the largest employers all over the globe, then it means that the government policies define and shape the nature of industrial relations that exist. Australian industrial relations can be traced back to the passage of the trade unions act where it started with the sick leave and rose to include the fair, work commission where the recent amendment was the protection of vulnerable workers (Gahan & Pekarek 2012, p. 196). On the other hand, China is a socialist state whose industrial relations have developed from the broader labor market transformations that have taken place in the country. In law enforcement, mediation and arbitration, the Chinese industrial relations system has slowly grown to recognize the international standards that exist (Hui & Chan 2014, p. 4). This essay analyses the similarities and differences between the Chinese industrial relations and Australian industrial relations.

Trade unions play a bigger political role in many countries by aligning workers towards the political opinion that fits them. Both Australia and China have witnessed this development where the unions have influenced political outcomes and changes that have been witnessed around the globe. Sun & Bray (2014, p. 173) suggests that the ACFTU exists as an of the Chinese Communist Party whose agenda shifts every time and now and then based on the manifesto and policies of the party. Instead of representing the real issues affecting workers, the union balances between the needs of workers and the party to avoid legal confrontation with the state which has more mandate over the union. The situation is similar to Australia where the ACTU supports the policies of the Australian Labor Party in close association thus shifting the alliance of workers to support the party (Pekarek & Gahan 2016, p. 4). This situation is seen by campaign manifestos that political parties develop during campaigns. By involving the issue of workers in politics, this means that the trade unions are slowly aligning with the political agenda of the country.

Role of Trade Unions in Politics

Another similarity in the two countries is the role of the state in the development of industrial relations that are seen today. The role of the state in China can be attributed to the history of state-owned enterprises that dominated business this meaning that the industrial relations were controlled by the state. The country has done several amendments on the industrial relations witnessed in the country and led to increased benefits to both employers and employees (Lee 2016, p. 420). In China the labor transformations characterize the industrial relations that exist in the country with the government ensuring that all levels of government and labor authorities are responsible for law enforcement (Cooke 2014, p. 4). In Australia, this trend is similar to the Chinese system where the state plays a major role in the industrial relations experienced in the country. According to Bailey & Peetz (2014, p. 12) Australia has witnessed a shift in transition ideology and practice from traditional liberalism to neo-liberalism allowing the unions and other bodies to do their work in meeting the industrial relation demands.

One similarity if the two countries is the role the state in employee relations. In China, the state is a legislator, an employer and an economic manager. Chang (2015, p. 11) sugests that, before the 1990s the China was publicly owned and the state was the largest employer where different laws were passed to strengthen employee relations and ensure that employees can benefit. In government regulation of the labor market, the Chinese government has allowed passing of laws like the labour contract law of 2008, employment promotions law of 2008, labour disputes and mediation and arbitration law (2008), the special regulation on minimum gage (2004) and the regulation of employment services management law of 2008 as the desire of the government to protect employees. Australia has the same policies where the unions were powerful and had been supported with the legislations that existed in the past (Freeman 2015, p. 15). However, the Australian government felt that there was need to control the power of unions by limiting their role from collective bargaining to enterprise bargaining.

One common similarity between China and Australia is the structure of trade unions that exist in these two countries. In Australia the peak body for the unions is the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) which has forty-six other affiliated trade unions and nine trades and labor councils. This makes the ACTU a member of the International Trade Union Confederation (Gahan & Pekarek 2012, p. 210). Its main objective is to organize wages and salary earners within the country and utilize Australian resources to maintain full employment and ensure equitable living standards for all workers in creation of opportunities. The same is seen in China where the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is the overall body that represents the issue of workers within the country.  The union is overall with no other bodies that are below it and it represents all the issues that the Chinese workers face (Traub-Merz 2011. P. 6). However, there has been the push for establishment of trade unions at the enterprise sector to allow employees bargain more for the issues that affect them. The nature of the trade union is characterized by the socialism nature of the country where the state has more stake in the issues of trade unions as compared to what happens in other countries.

Role of the State in Industrial Relations

However, one difference is that the Australia state walks the talk and allow the state to only intervene in shaping market forces. This has led to the need to crush the role of the state by changing from arbitral law to corporation law (Freeman 2015, p. 11). The industrial power in Australia lies in the state who have the powers for arbitration. On the other hand, in China, the state has higher power and arbitration on industrial relations as compared to Australia. The fact that the system of government is different allows the state to enjoy more powers in industrial relations. Further, since the Chinese government is the largest employer as compared to private corporations, then the state enjoys more control of industrial relations.

Employee relations in Australia and China differ regarding collective bargaining power of unions. In Australia employee relations have undergone workplace reform to the state where the Howard government shifted from the old industrial relations system (Freeman, 2015) where employee and employer rights were controlled by industrial tribunals (Dongfang 2013, pp. 5). Today the system has been reduced from collective bargaining to enterprise and individual bargaining that allows representing of most employees who are employed on casual basis. This system is a move away from the collective approach to a fragmented system of individual bargaining of employees and employers thus creating more value to the individual employee directly. This system is quite different from China where collective bargaining power is still being implemented at the union level (Hui & Chan 2014, p. 14). Chinese unions still enjoy these bargaining privileges and push for the needs of employees in a better way as they engage the state and the private sector as the major employers.

However, China system differs since it has one single trade union that controls bargaining for the whole country and issues of employees. This presents challenges in addressing enterprise-level challenges since the scope is too much for one body to implement and at the same time play oversight authority (Traub-Merz, 20111). Unlike Australia, the ACTU has forty-six affiliated unions that have mandate to implement employee issues at the enterprise-level (Productivity Commission 2015, p. 11). Further, the Australian government is shifting the bargaining power to the individual thus making it easy for people to make their own negotiations at the enterprise or organizational level to meet their labor relation needs.

One major difference between China and Australia is the government control and regulation of the trade union. In China, the state has major control of the trade unions and uses regulation to reduce the bargaining power of the union (Dongfang 2013, pp. 3). By having only one major union, the state limits the powers of the union in a wider scope thus making most workers to be seen as victims of repression with no rights and a trade union that cannot meet their needs. On the other hand, Australian workers enjoy enterprise representation which increases the effectiveness of the unions in championing the issues of workers (Gahan & Pekarek 2012, p. 200). This has led to the rise of individual bargaining where an individual is allowed to make arrangements with the enterprise on personal grounds without going in the union.

Employee Relations and Collective Bargaining Power

From the analysis, the unions in these two countries have similar legal obligations that are designed from the ILO which is the international overall body for workers. However, the difference between the two countries is the level of state regulation and interference in union issues. The China government seems to be controlling the role of unions to ensure that they follow the socialism political structure of the country. However, in Australia, the state is only a player in the union issue by playing an oversight role in the regulation of employee-related issues. This means that the state can moderate and make trade unions powerful depending on the political ideologies of the country and its leaders.

References

Bailey, J. & Peetz, D., 2014. Australian unions and collective bargaining in 2013. Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(3), p. 415–432.

Chang, K., 2015. Two forms of labour movements in the transition towards collective labour, relations in China-Characteristics of current development and prospect (ILERA) 17th World congress. Cape Town, s.n.

Cooke, F. L., 2014. China: Industrial relations profile, s.l.: The tripartite EU agency providing knowledge to assist in the development of better social, employment and work-related policies.

Dongfang, H., 2013 . China should play a key role in the global trade union movement. Finance Times, 20 September .

Freeman, R., 2015. A Labor Market With Chinese Characteristics. London: Routledge.

Gahan, P. & Pekarek, A., 2012. The rise and rise of enterprise bargaining in Australia, 1991–2011. Labour & Industry. A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work, 22(3), p. 195–222.

Hui, E. S.-i. & Chan, C. K.-c., 2014. Beyond the Union-Centred Approach: A Critical Evaluation of Recent Trade Union Elections in Chin. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 10(5), pp. 1-27.

Lee, C.-H., 2016. Recent Industrial Relations Developments in China and Viet Nam: The Transformation of Industrial Relations in East Asian Transition Economies. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(3), pp. 415-429.

Pekarek, A. & Gahan, P., 2016. Unions and collective bargaining in Australia in 2015. Journal of Industrial Relations, pp. 1-15.

ProductivityCommission, 2015. Workplace relations framework, s.l.: ACT, Australia.

Sun, S. & Bray, M., 2014. The dynamics of recent changes in the Chinese trade union movement. Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 24(3), pp. 170-189.

Traub-Merz, R., 20111. All China Federation of Trade Unions: Structure, Functions and the Challenge of Collective Bargaining, s.l.: Internartional Labor Organization.