Between Individualism and Collectivism? Why Employers Choose Non-Union Collective Agreements

Abstract

Why do employers choose to make, or not make, non-union collective agreements? Based on a study of s170LK (LK) agreements in the federal jurisdiction, our key finding is that employer choices in relation to these agreements are rarely the product of ideological frames such as collectivism or individualism, or overarching human resource strategies. Whilst LK agreements were sometimes chosen because of their fit with ‘soft’ human resource strategies, agreement choices were more commonly driven by practical, utilitarian assessments of the administrative cost, efficiency and practical efficacy of agreement instruments for achieving particular workplace changes (usually reconfiguring the award wage—hours nexus). The s170LK agreements are rarely offered or successfully implemented in well-organised worksites, but they have nonetheless been used in particular circumstances to exclude, marginalise and substitute for unions. As the recent WorkChoices amendments open up new opportunities for lowering labour costs through agreement-making and remove or ameliorate the key disincentives identified as sometimes discouraging employers from making non-union collective agreements, they can be expected to grow rapidly—perhaps even more so than individual AWAs.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.