Employment Relations in Australia and India

Managing
employment
relation

Managing employment relation 1
Compare, contrast and critically assess employment relations of state, unions and
employers in Australia with India
The employment relations actors (state, unions, and employers) in Australia have
been compared with India in this paper. Since 1990s, the industrial associations system of
Australia has experienced several changes like substantial judicial change, structural change,
falloffs in the union solidity and power, and increase in non-standard procedures of
employment. The centralized industrial associations system has made shift to the
decentralized system concentrating on enterprise negotiating. The population of Australia is
estimated at 21 million and GDP more than US $1 trillion. Out of 21 million, 10 million
public in Australia are identified belonging to the labor force. 75% of the labor force is
engaged in services whereas 20% are in the production and construction sector. The
Australian economy is greatly relied on the mining and cultivation industries, whereas such
industries retaining 5% of the complete workers. The country has practiced robust economic
growth from 1980s to 2007. Only two years faced a sharp downturn 1990 and 1991. The
employment relations on the basis of state have caused shifts in the forms of employment.
The organization of employment has reformed drastically in current years. There is drop in
full-time employment which is even identified as permanent employment. The several types
of non-standard employment have made expansion in the unplanned work, outsourcing,
provisional jobs and use of the activities and rest labor market mediators. Most of the jobs
generated during 1990s were deliberated to be casual only whereas freelance jobs were the
rapidly growing concern of employment. When it comes to the political context, the state has
been a confederation which is a government structure with the chief federal government and
6 local state governments. The federal government is restricted to making laws were allied to
manufacturing relations under the composition of Australia. Earlier all the industrial
commandments were originally under the authority of the states. When it comes to the legal
context, an arbitration system was formed in 1904 and functioned until 1988. This system
was strictly restricted to the engineering clashes after the boundaries of the provincial states.
The industrial relations act was passed in 1988 and more implications were announced in
1993 in the form of the industrial reforms. It incorporated certain obligation to safeguard
industrial action while a elected bargaining period. When it comes to working choices
legislation, workplace relations act was introduced in 1996 which restricted the influence of
the Australian engineering associations commission (McPhail, et al. 2015). The ‘work
choices’ were introduced in 2005. It initiated five minimum employment conditions. Further,

Managing employment relation 2
fair work act, 2009 was recast of the industrial associations system and withdrawal for the
superfluous work choices. The fair work act in Australia was formed as the new employment
regulator to endorse and implement obedience with the fresh laws.
Whereas the employment relations of state in India flagged the way for great
economic growth in the 1990s and comprised significant liberalization of the extensive labor
laws. The employment relations of the state are shaped by political factors. The employment
relationship is a paternalistic policy centered on the belief that ‘state knew’ more about the
employee’s requirements than the employers themselves. This way, state took and
accumulated the several ‘union voices’ for the gathered resolution of quick industrialization
with the minimum industrial conflict. In the public enterprises and services, internal labor
market produced social harmony with the sense of belonging like if not economic proficiency
then with the concerns of the unions. The Indian state does not allow equality of the treatment
to all the groups (Bordogna, 2015). The state has to resist with the partial resolution and
partial pluralism. The period of 1967 to 1979 is linked with the complete industrial stagnation
and the structural changes shaped the economy. 1980s have been deliberated as best time for
the economic growth in India but worst when it comes to the employment generation. The
state enhanced economic growth in all the sectors of the Indian economy and open
unemployment increased in 1980s. Most of these accredited to sharp deteriorations in the
employment elasticity in all the sectors of the economy (Rodwell, Ellershaw & Flower,
2015).
Australian unions’ fast development was empowered by the pacification and
negotiation systems. 50% of the Australian labor power was blended by 1921. The Australian
union was vacillated since then to 40% throughout 1930s and rise again with a top of 65% in
1953. The union concentration in Australia is deteriorating progressively in the last two
decades as union density was 49% in 1990 of the whole workforce whereas it was 19.5% in
2007. The union density in Australia is realized much advanced in the public sector as
compared to the private sector. The public sector accounted for 44% whereas public sector
claims to 15% in 2007. The reasons identified for the decline of union are compound and
diverse. The major factor realized is structural change in the economy comprising conflict of
the industrial engagement and hasty development of the services sector. A concerned change
is deterioration in the full-time occupation and evolution of the types of non-standard
occupation. The additional influences contributed to the decline of the unions are growth of
the anti-unionism among employers, inside union policies and elimination of the official