Unions target small business through women

Having represented mostly male employees in traditional sectors like mining and trades for aeons, it’s not a stretch to say they are struggling to stay relevant to modern employees today. These days a large bulk of casual and part-time employees are women, often mothers who are juggling caring duties alongside paid work.

Data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows that 30 per cent of women work part time compared to 11 per cent of men. Female-dominated industries employ the highest number of part-time managers, yet union representation amongst this cohort isn’t particularly strong. With their macho shenanigans and brinkmanship tactics, unions could hardly claim to represent the interests of working mothers.

Yes, women benefit from flexible working arrangements, but they won’t benefit if their role is replaced because small business owners suddenly find themselves having to check in with unions before they’re allowed to make a decision.

The on-the-go flexibility small business currently provide employees will disappear. This means that even if you do work from home they will be tracking your work, and when you want to have time off for personal reasons they’ll probably have to say no, as they’ll also be tied down by the fear of being dragged to Fair Work because of the new Right to Disconnect laws.

Research shows flexible work is unequivocally tied to women’s ability to participate in the workplace, giving them the opportunity to achieve financial independence. For businesses looking to retain diverse talent and future-proof the workplace, embracing flexible work is unequivocally beneficial in the long run. Yet ham-fisted attempts to instil a one-size-fits-all approach to flexible work when a successful arrangement already exists will only have the effect of stifling its progress.

For the regular small business owner who already spends an average of 541 hours and $14,857 per year on red tape, the proposed work-from-home “solution” translates into even more work with no discernible benefit.

And when things go wrong, who will be paying for the employee or small business owner if they need representation at the FWC? Who will subsidise a replacement for the small business owner who will have to leave the running their business each time a claim is made against them?

Why weren’t small businesses even consulted before this union demand was made?

In the end, this will become such a burden for small business owners that they will be tempted to replace employees with overseas workers, AI, and contractors. In fact, small businesses are already replacing employees with overseas workers because of the tsunami of legislation the government has brought in.

It is also very likely the small business sector will continue to close its doors (1000 per day in Australia as we speak) which will simply leave the employees the union claims to represent without a job at all. One must ask if that is actually what they wanted all along.