Kurt Walpole
The University of Sydney, Graduate school of government, Graduate Student
- Public Administration, Industrial And Labor Relations, Industrial Relations, Employment Relations, Australia, New Zealand, and 8 moreComparative Politics, Institutional Theory, Institutional Change, Historical Institutionalism, Policy Analysis/Policy Studies, Public Policy, Industrial and LAbour relations, and Australian Politicsedit
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers and indirectly influence many more by setting the standard for enterprise agreements. This paper examines the... more
ABSTRACT Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers and indirectly influence many more by setting the standard for enterprise agreements. This paper examines the relationship between formal qualifications within the Australian Qualifications Framework, job roles and pay rates in Australia’s 122 modern awards. These institutional linkages are key mechanisms connecting skills acquisition through education and training with production processes and pay outcomes. More than a quarter of awards make no connections at all between classifications and qualifications while only a quarter feature strong linkages. In most awards, the connections are relatively loose and there is also strong variation by industry. Notably many modern awards in the fast-growing service industries contain few or no connections. Despite the growing importance of non-technical skills and university-level education, references to qualifications across the modern award system overall are predominantly to trade-level Certificate III qualifications. The results suggest that the current structure of awards will do little to promote further skills acquisition among most of the award-reliant workforce.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers... more
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers have instead used the term collective agreement-making. The Fair Work Act 2009 signifies a substantial consolidation of enterprise bargaining practices by instituting a single collective agreement-making process, which this article examines through formalistic legal analysis. The analysis explores the ways enterprise bargaining practices under the Fair Work Act are allowed to diverge from collective bargaining. This article contributes to our understanding of collective agreement-making processes by explicating two important dimensions of variation: how employees are represented and how terms of agreement are derived. Whether collective agreement-making under the Fair Work Act’s procedures aligns with collective bargaining is found to depend upon the choices of individual participants, particularly employees’ choices between five broad representative forms and bargaining representatives’ conduct, especially the employer’s. In extreme cases, there may not be any employee representation, and employers may exploit the legal meaning of ‘agreement’ to avoid meaningful negotiation and instead pursue employee acquiescence in a voting procedure.
Research Interests:
ABSTRACT Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers and indirectly influence many more by setting the standard for enterprise agreements. This paper examines the... more
ABSTRACT Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers and indirectly influence many more by setting the standard for enterprise agreements. This paper examines the relationship between formal qualifications within the Australian Qualifications Framework, job roles and pay rates in Australia’s 122 modern awards. These institutional linkages are key mechanisms connecting skills acquisition through education and training with production processes and pay outcomes. More than a quarter of awards make no connections at all between classifications and qualifications while only a quarter feature strong linkages. In most awards, the connections are relatively loose and there is also strong variation by industry. Notably many modern awards in the fast-growing service industries contain few or no connections. Despite the growing importance of non-technical skills and university-level education, references to qualifications across the modern award system overall are predominantly to trade-level Certificate III qualifications. The results suggest that the current structure of awards will do little to promote further skills acquisition among most of the award-reliant workforce.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article examines job classifications in enterprise agreements from the Australian manufacturing industry, focusing on the recognition of formal qualifications. It follows earlier research that found the strength and frequency of... more
This article examines job classifications in enterprise agreements from the Australian manufacturing industry, focusing on the recognition of formal qualifications. It follows earlier research that found the strength and frequency of references to qualifications vary considerably between modern awards, with manufacturing industry awards having some of the strongest connections. A representative sample of 350 agreements (13.5% of the total) made under the Fair Work Act between 2010 and 2013 was analysed. Analysis revealed that linkages between formal qualifications and job classification structures are less common in enterprise agreements than in relevant modern awards. However, the overall effects of enterprise bargaining on recognition of employees' qualifications are complex. We find that, one way or another, the award classification structure continues to apply in 47.1% of enterprise agreements. Through logistic regression, we explore factors influencing the use of formal qua...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers... more
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers have instead used the term collective agreement-making. The Fair Work Act 2009 signifies a substantial consolidation of enterprise bargaining practices by instituting a single collective agreement-making process, which this article examines through formalistic legal analysis. The analysis explores the ways enterprise bargaining practices under the Fair Work Act are allowed to diverge from collective bargaining. This article contributes to our understanding of collective agreement-making processes by explicating two important dimensions of variation: how employees are represented and how terms of agreement are derived. Whether collective agreement-making under the Fair Work Act’s procedures aligns with collective bargaining is found to depend upon the choices of individual participants, particularly employees’ choices between five broad representative forms and bargaining representatives’ conduct, especially the employer’s. In extreme cases, there may not be any employee representation, and employers may exploit the legal meaning of ‘agreement’ to avoid meaningful negotiation and instead pursue employee acquiescence in a voting procedure.
Research Interests:
This article examines job classifications in enterprise agreements from the Australian manufacturing industry, focusing on the recognition of formal qualifications. It follows earlier research that found the strength and frequency of... more
This article examines job classifications in enterprise agreements from the Australian manufacturing industry, focusing on the recognition of formal qualifications. It follows earlier research that found the strength and frequency of references to qualifications vary considerably between modern awards, with manufacturing industry awards having some of the strongest connections. A representative sample of 350 agreements (13.5% of the total) made under the Fair Work Act between 2010 and 2013 was analysed. Analysis revealed that linkages between formal qualifications and job classification structures are less common in enterprise agreements than in relevant modern awards. However, the overall effects of enterprise bargaining on recognition of employees' qualifications are complex. We find that, one way or another, the award classification structure continues to apply in 47.1% of enterprise agreements. Through logistic regression, we explore factors influencing the use of formal qua...
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers... more
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers have instead used the term collective agreement-making. The Fair Work Act 2009 signifies a substantial consolidation of enterprise bargaining practices by instituting a single collective agreement-making process, which this article examines through formalistic legal analysis. The analysis explores the ways enterprise bargaining practices under the Fair Work Act are allowed to diverge from collective bargaining. This article contributes to our understanding of collective agreement-making processes by explicating two important dimensions of variation: how employees are represented and how terms of agreement are derived. Whether collective agreement-making under the Fair Work Act’s procedures aligns with collective bargaining is found to depend upon the choices of individual participants, particularly employees’ choices between five broad representative forms and bargaining representatives’ conduct, especially the employer’s. In extreme cases, there may not be any employee representation, and employers may exploit the legal meaning of ‘agreement’ to avoid meaningful negotiation and instead pursue employee acquiescence in a voting procedure.
Research Interests:
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers... more
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers have instead used the term collective agreement-making. The Fair Work Act 2009 signifies a substantial consolidation of enterprise bargaining practices by instituting a single collective agreement-making process, which this article examines through formalistic legal analysis. The analysis explores the ways enterprise bargaining practices under the Fair Work Act are allowed to diverge from collective bargaining. This article contributes to our understanding of collective agreement-making processes by explicating two important dimensions of variation: how employees are represented and how terms of agreement are derived. Whether collective agreement-making under the Fair Work Act’s procedures aligns with collective bargaining is found to depend upon the choices of individual participants, particularly employees’ choices between five broad representative forms and bargaining representatives’ conduct, especially the employer’s. In extreme cases, there may not be any employee representation, and employers may exploit the legal meaning of ‘agreement’ to avoid meaningful negotiation and instead pursue employee acquiescence in a voting procedure.
Research Interests:
The ILO regards freedom of association as an essential precondition for meaningful collective bargaining. This means worker collectives, usually organised as trade unions, are essential to the collective bargaining process. However,... more
The ILO regards freedom of association as an essential precondition for meaningful collective
bargaining. This means worker collectives, usually organised as trade unions, are essential to the
collective bargaining process. However, Australia’s current industrial relations legislation, the Fair
Work Act 2009, allows for collective agreements to be made without any trade union involvement.
Instead the process is based on individual employee rights, including the right to appoint a nonunion
bargaining representative and to participate in a binding vote to approve or reject the
employer’s proposed terms. Australian politicians refer to this process as collective bargaining,
yet this paper will demonstrate that it is at odds with the internationally-accepted group-based
understanding of the concept. This presents an analytical problem for researchers: how should
similarities and differences between Australian collective agreement-making and collective
bargaining in other nations be articulated and compared. As the basis for such an assessment, an
understanding of collective bargaining is distilled from ILO jurisprudence. A refinement of an
existing system for classifying employment regulations is then proposed. This classificatory
system suggests collective agreements made in Australia and those made via collective bargaining
are similar because both involve employers and workers sharing responsibility for the authorship
of employment rules. This category of rules is labelled joint regulations. While this articulates a
key similarity, there is both considerable scope for overlap and also potentially great differences
between the process of collective bargaining and Australia’s highly permissive, individual rights-
based collective agreement-making procedures. Consideration of these differences reminds us of
the features of collective bargaining that contribute to social justice.
bargaining. This means worker collectives, usually organised as trade unions, are essential to the
collective bargaining process. However, Australia’s current industrial relations legislation, the Fair
Work Act 2009, allows for collective agreements to be made without any trade union involvement.
Instead the process is based on individual employee rights, including the right to appoint a nonunion
bargaining representative and to participate in a binding vote to approve or reject the
employer’s proposed terms. Australian politicians refer to this process as collective bargaining,
yet this paper will demonstrate that it is at odds with the internationally-accepted group-based
understanding of the concept. This presents an analytical problem for researchers: how should
similarities and differences between Australian collective agreement-making and collective
bargaining in other nations be articulated and compared. As the basis for such an assessment, an
understanding of collective bargaining is distilled from ILO jurisprudence. A refinement of an
existing system for classifying employment regulations is then proposed. This classificatory
system suggests collective agreements made in Australia and those made via collective bargaining
are similar because both involve employers and workers sharing responsibility for the authorship
of employment rules. This category of rules is labelled joint regulations. While this articulates a
key similarity, there is both considerable scope for overlap and also potentially great differences
between the process of collective bargaining and Australia’s highly permissive, individual rights-
based collective agreement-making procedures. Consideration of these differences reminds us of
the features of collective bargaining that contribute to social justice.
Research Interests:
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers... more
Policies promoting enterprise bargaining in Australia are often associated with collective bargaining. However, collective bargaining does not accurately describe a range of enterprise bargaining activity and some Australian researchers have instead used the term collective agreement-making. The Fair Work Act 2009 signifies a substantial consolidation of enterprise bargaining practices by instituting a single collective agreement-making process, which this article examines through formalistic legal analysis. The analysis explores the ways enterprise bargaining practices under the Fair Work Act are allowed to diverge from collective bargaining. This article contributes to our understanding of collective agreement-making processes by explicating two important dimensions of variation: how employees are represented and how terms of agreement are derived. Whether collective agreement-making under the Fair Work Act’s procedures aligns with collective bargaining is found to depend upon the choices of individual participants, particularly employees’ choices between five broad representative forms and bargaining representatives’ conduct, especially the employer’s. In extreme cases, there may not be any employee representation, and employers may exploit the legal meaning of ‘agreement’ to avoid meaningful negotiation and instead pursue employee acquiescence in a voting procedure.
Research Interests:
Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers and indirectly influence many more by setting the standard for enterprise agreements. This paper examines the relationship between... more
Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers and indirectly influence many more by setting the standard for enterprise agreements. This paper examines the relationship between formal qualifications within the Australian Qualifications Framework, job roles and pay rates in Australia’s 122 modern awards. These institutional linkages are key mechanisms connecting skills acquisition through education and training with production processes and pay outcomes. More than a quarter of awards make no connections at all between classifications and qualifications while only a quarter feature strong linkages. In most awards, the connections are relatively loose and there is also strong variation by industry. Notably many modern awards in the fast-growing service industries contain few or no connections. Despite the growing importance of non-technical skills and university-level education, references to qualifications across the modern award system overall are predominantly to trade-level Certificate III qualifications. The results suggest that the current structure of awards will do little to promote further skills acquisition among most of the award-reliant workforce.
Research Interests:
An assumed incentive for an individual to complete a VET qualification is the chance to earn higher pay. This paper examines the relationship between AQF qualifications, job roles and pay rates in Australia’s 122 modern awards. Modern... more
An assumed incentive for an individual to complete a VET qualification is the chance to earn higher pay. This paper examines the relationship between AQF qualifications, job roles and pay rates in Australia’s 122 modern awards. Modern awards directly determine the pay and employment conditions of around one in five Australian workers (many of them in VET-relevant occupations) and indirectly influence many more, by setting the standard for enterprise agreements.
Each classification in each modern award was analysed and allocated to one of six categories describing the relationship between an AQF qualification and the pay rate, ranging from no mention of an AQF qualification to exclusive (only someone with that AQF qualification can be employed in that classification). Preliminary data suggest:
35 out of 122 modern awards contain no reference to AQF qualifications.
By contrast, 32 out of 122 modern awards contain at least one classification that guarantees an employee with a particular qualification a higher pay rate.
The paper details how these patterns linking qualifications to classifications vary by industry. While awards in traditional blue collar areas such as manufacturing include extensive connections between AQF qualifications and job classifications, many modern awards in fast-growing service industries contain few, or no, connections.
The paper summarises how frequently the various qualification levels are mentioned in modern awards, as well as the pay range to which different qualification levels are linked.
These findings show that the once-strong links between the VET system and the industrial relations system in Australia have weakened over time, particularly in the last 20 years.
Each classification in each modern award was analysed and allocated to one of six categories describing the relationship between an AQF qualification and the pay rate, ranging from no mention of an AQF qualification to exclusive (only someone with that AQF qualification can be employed in that classification). Preliminary data suggest:
35 out of 122 modern awards contain no reference to AQF qualifications.
By contrast, 32 out of 122 modern awards contain at least one classification that guarantees an employee with a particular qualification a higher pay rate.
The paper details how these patterns linking qualifications to classifications vary by industry. While awards in traditional blue collar areas such as manufacturing include extensive connections between AQF qualifications and job classifications, many modern awards in fast-growing service industries contain few, or no, connections.
The paper summarises how frequently the various qualification levels are mentioned in modern awards, as well as the pay range to which different qualification levels are linked.
These findings show that the once-strong links between the VET system and the industrial relations system in Australia have weakened over time, particularly in the last 20 years.