Dialogue: Sky sure not to fall in with Employment Bill

By PAUL CHALMERS*

Remember the children's story about Chicken Licken, who created farmyard chaos by claiming the sky was falling in.

The commotion in our business henhouse has seen feathers fly as the Government's Employment Relations Bill has fallen on employers' heads. Business confidence has plummeted as employers claimed, "The sky's falling in."

Rather than examine exactly what has landed in its midst, our business community, fuelled by misinformation and speculation, has become the Chicken Lickens of industrial relations. The bill will damage our economy about as much as the storytime acorn.

Two interesting features of the debate stand out. The first is the lack of accurate detail about the exact problems with the bill. This feature becomes more interesting when considering the second feature: the make-up of those who are complaining. It seems most are employers who are committed supporters of the Employment Contracts Act and, particularly, of individual contracts.

The lack of detail about the exact problem is most frustrating. My reading of the bill disputes many of the findings of those clamouring for its demise.

For example, most of my associates are contractors and most of my work is on contract but I have no fear regarding my status or those of my associates under this legislation. If each party chooses to be a contractor, that is what they will stay.

It is evident from many of their comments that the employers at the wailing wall have yet to read the bill and have instead relied on the opinion of those whose business it is to profit from offering their advice.

It seemed from the performance of the general manager of Progressive Enterprises on the Holmes programme that he had not read the proposed legislation and had not come to grips with his own staff's employment conditions.

Ralph Norris, the chairman of the Business Roundtable, declared in a Herald interview that "a lot of business people feel they have been deceived. We were led to expect changes at the margins of the Employment Contracts Act."

Where has he been for the past year? Anyone within hailing distance of a newspaper could have told him the act was a roast chook.

Opposition to the bill is couched in the rhetoric of ideologues battling the forces of socialism in the cause of freedom - tired rhetoric at that, and the reason the ideologues have been drummed off the Government benches and into opposition.

At this point in the debate, it has become clear that the main protagonists in the fight against the bill are those who have taken a particularly ideological approach to the present legislation. Most of the wailing seems to be from that group of employers who were particularly vigorous in ensuring unions were excluded from bargaining with "their" employees and who embarked on individual contracts as if on a personal mission.

That their wailing has disrupted business confidence in the face of favourable economic indicators is a worry.

It might be useful to examine those employers from whom we have not heard much during the debate: those who work with unions and for whom this new legislation will make little difference.

Take the large manufacturer who worked with the union to develop an "opening of the books" strategy well in advance of the requirement of good faith bargaining. Employees are given such information as a facility's annual turnover, earnings before interest and tax and a detailed cost structure.

This analysis starts with their work area and is consolidated into a full picture of the facility's performance. Opening the books is an opportunity to involve staff in the management of the business, to understand the costs of waste and to look for ways to achieve better performance.

We work with three large employers who not only believe that opening the books is a good idea but is essential for business survival.

While the Government is taking a hammering for its apparent lack of appreciation of our business community, it might be interesting to examine the differences between it and the previous National Administration when it comes to assisting industry.

We have just been made aware that a technology business opportunity with more than 150 jobs was lost to New Zealand because the previous Government showed no interest in assisting the business to get off the ground.

As business development contractors, we have approached the present Government with similar opportunities and have had a completely different response. We have had immediate access to the relevant minister, had contact with supporting ministers and been put in touch with Government officials who have immediately taken up our case.

Their willingness to sit down and talk with business has already meant one Auckland-based manufacturer who was thinking of shifting to Sydney is now staying and expanding.

This is not the world of Chicken Licken. The sky is not falling in and if some of our business leaders looked up they would find a sky full of support and opportunity.

* Paul Chalmers is a business consultant specialising in skills development.