Is Enterprise Bargaining Still a Better Way of Working?

Keith Townsend, Adrian Wilkinson, John Burgess

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 1989, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) produced a blueprint for change titled 'Enterprise based bargaining units: A better way of working'. To a great extent, this document and the corresponding shifts in business, government and union approaches to wage and conditions determination meant that Australia shifted from a centralised to a workplace system of bargaining. After more than two decades of enterprise bargaining, though, we ask the question: Is it still a better way of working? While the Business Council of Australia pointed to a panoply of advantages, we look at the other side of the argument. Decentralisation may be inefficient at a number of levels. First, there is the procedure of bargaining and the resources, expertise and time that is required. Second, there are the outcomes of bargaining, where despite a more individual focus, in many cases, outcomes demonstrate very little variation across enterprises. Finally, there are the collateral consequences of bargaining: conflict, reduced trust and disruption. Is enterprise bargaining still meeting the needs of the actors or has the model run its course? We consider two case studies of bargaining that demonstrate the limitations and advantages of enterprise bargaining.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)100-117
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Industrial Relations
Volume55
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2013
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Case studies
  • cooperation
  • enterprise bargaining
  • trade unions
  • trust
  • workplace

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is Enterprise Bargaining Still a Better Way of Working?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this