Explain pay policy, Labour urged

Labour is being pressed for detail on its ‘‘Fair Pay Agreement’’ policy which business fears could lead to national industry-wide strikes.

Labour’s industrial relations election policy says: ‘‘Fair Pay Agreements (FPAs) will be agreed by businesses within an industry and the unions representing workers within that industry. FPAs will set basic standards for pay and other employment conditions within an industry, according to factors including job type and experience.’’

It’s a policy Labour’s Iain LeesGalloway said was designed to give power back to workers. For many people, pay has not kept up with the cost of living, especially in cities such as Auckland and Wellington.

But Business NZ and National’s Steven Joyce called for Labour to explain to the electorate exactly how the policy would work, and whether there was the prospect of entire industries going on strike should FPA negotiations break down.

Lees-Galloway said a Labourled Government would spend the first 12 months working out how to implement FPAs.

‘‘We would give ourselves 12 months to sit down with business and unions to look at how the process of bargaining for an FPA would be initiated,’’ he said.

Other points that had to be thought through included exactly how each ‘‘industry’’ covered by an individual FPA would be determined. Other uncertainties included how the FPA negotiations process would work, whether arbitration would be used if talks failed, and whether strike action might be used during negotiations.

Kirk Hope from Business New Zealand said: ‘‘Pan-industry awards have been part of Labour policy at least since 2011, so it is concerning that there is a lack of detail around how the policy might work in practice.

‘‘The Fair Pay Agreements policy would be the largest systemic change promoted by any party this election.

‘‘It’s important that it receives more scrutiny and debate in the run-up to the election.’’

Lees-Galloway said: ‘‘The Council of Trade Unions (CTU) have said strike action would not necessarily have to be part of these agreements.

‘‘Where agreement can’t be reached, going to some form of arbitration rather than allowing for strike action might be a preferable approach.’’

Richard Wagstaff, president of the CTU, was angered by suggestions that strikes could follow the introduction of FPAs, and the policy was not a return to nationwide industry-based collective agreements.

‘‘There’s no prospect, zero prospect of industrial action from this,’’ Wagstaff said.

The CTU’s proposals did not include a mechanism for industrial action during FPA negotiations, he said.

Joyce said concern about the FPA policy had been voiced at business events, but these had not made it to the national media yet.

‘‘The world has changed since the 1970s, when we last had this sort of approach,’’ Joyce said.

‘‘I think there would be a very big pushback if Labour were able to get into government.’’

Wagstaff said FPAs would be focused on narrow industries, citing the example of bus drivers, where pay and conditions were being forced down as bus companies competed for business in tenders with councils.

Talk of the policy being a return to the 1970s was wrong, he said.

Joyce said: ‘‘The desire of Labour is to give the unions the place at the table with the employers and themselves to demand common standards across industries like manufacturing.’’

‘‘I don’t think they are pushing in the strike direction, but they are pushing in the control direction, which would be troubling for exports.’’

Lees-Galloway said workers had not shared in economic gains, and Labour’s polling showed many voters were concerned.

‘‘It [FPA] puts a little more power in the hands of the workers to negotiate fair conditions.’’

National’s policy response to the rise of the ‘‘working poor’’ is the Family Incomes Package.