A law change that doesn’t really matter

All through last week, much of the political class was obsessed with one word: MECAS.

MECAS are multi employer collective agreements, basically union collective contracts that cover more than one workplace. Last week they became the flashpoint for yet another spat between Labour and NZ First, as the Government’s workplace relations bill came back from select committee with the controversial MECA clause still intact.

Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones was worried about urban pay rates being forced on provincial employers. Someone briefed Politik that NZ First wanted regional employers to have a special opt-out provision. And Winston Peters refused to guarantee his support for the bill, saying it was still a ‘‘work-inprogress’’.

NZ First’s position made sense, given the relentless campaign against the reforms from the business lobby and National. This was a good chance for Peters to look strong standing up to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, especially if he was going to have to swallow the dead rat of a higher refugee quota.

But the MECA clause will not actually change anything. How do I know this? Because like almost every change in the upcoming workplace relations bill, the MECA clause is a simple reversal of a change made by National during its last tenure in government – it takes the law back to where it was in 2015. While businesses will no longer have the easy road of a no-questions-asked ‘‘opt-out’’, the only requirement is that they sit down to discuss a MECA ‘‘in good faith’’. Once they have sat down in said good faith they can walk away, simply saying the MECA doesn’t really suit their business.

Victoria University’s Stephen Blumenfeld keeps track of collective agreements in New Zealand. And the evidence is that MECAS are almost entirely confined to the public sector, where uniform pay rates for nurses and teachers makes a lot of sense.

With the laws as Labour wants to change them back to, there were no new private sector MECAS between 2004 and 2015. There were 37 in 2004 and and 37 in 2015 – hardly a blip on the 500,000-odd private enterprises in this country. It’d be surprising if Labour’s change back to that statusquo resulted in any break from that 11-year run.

Of course, politics doesn’t run on facts and figures, it runs on symbolism. And the symbolism is important to both sides here. For Labour, keeping the MECA clause in the bill signals to its union backers that it does care about the wider notion of collective bargaining and wants to swing our country back towards more of it, and not just roll over for the business sector and Peters.

For NZ First, bloodying Labour’s nose over something as core as workplace relations – even if it is a basically meaningless clause – will be a real symbol to its right-leaning voters that the party can keep the pinkos in check.

Which leaves both parties in a bind, a shadowboxing match over a clause that won’t really change anything. If one of the rumours swirling around Parliament is true, and the Prime Minister is considering giving up on MECAS so she can raise the refugee quota, good on her. At least refugees are a real thing.

While businesses will no longer have the easy road of a no questions asked ‘‘optout’’, the only requirement is that they sit down to discuss a MECA ‘‘in good faith’’.