Assessment 2: Essay (30%) Essay question Employer associations have been advocating for the reduction of penalty rates listed in Modern Awards. The Fair Work Commission will have decided its major ‘Penalty Rates case’ in response to employer association arguments early in 2017. In your essay, firstly, analyse the advocacy of at least two employer associations around penalty rates in terms of their positon, reasoning and evidence; and, secondly, evaluate the implications of any reductions in penalty rates for employment growth and income equality. Background 200300 Managing People at Work introduced you to employers’ interests around the management of work and the employment relationship. In Enterprise Industrial Relations, we are asking you to go further, to look at employers’ preferences for the regulation of work and the employment relationship so they can best pursue those interests. That is, what do employers want from an industrial relations system? Is it about cost-cutting and managerial prerogative? Does the current IR system encourage good HRM and high-performance work systems that underpin economic efficiency? Employer associations and trade unions use rhetoric (‘spin’) and ambit (IR jargon that means asking for more than you reasonably expect to get) to influence their members, tribunals, governments, and voters. This assignment invites you to dig below the surface of statements via a stakeholder analysis. Sources for this essay The unit’s required readings will provide a foundation of knowledge for the essay (especially Boxall and Purcell 2016 and the Journal of Industrial Relations articles). You will also need to go to organisations’ websites. Prominent employer associations include the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia, and the Australian Industry Group. Penalty rates are particularly important for Restaurant and Catering Australia association (and its State branches), the NSW Business Chamber and the National Retailers Association. Your essay must demonstrate knowledge of the position of at least two employer associations using recent primary sources. The unit’s Twitter feed (embedded in vUWS) also contains links to very recent sources on stakeholders’ positions. The Fair Work Commission’s decision on penalty rates will be available on its Penalty Rates Case website . The decision is expected to be handed down in March or April. Please note that employer association submissions to the FWC’s hearing are already available on this Penalty Rates Case website. Those submissions count as recent primary sources. Recommended sources: Textbook, pp. 405 – 413. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2016), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Third Edition, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 1 ‘The Goals of Human Resource Management’, pp. 1 – 33. Barry, M. (2016) ‘Employer and employer association matters in 2015’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 340 - 355. Healy, J. (2016), ‘The Australian labour market in 2015’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 308 – 323 Productivity Commission (2015), Workplace Relations Framework Final Report, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report Volume 1, No. 76, 30 November, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. (This is a summary available at < http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/workplace-relations/report > ; See Chapter 10 – 14 of the full report deal for penalty rates evaluation.) Knox, A. 2009, ‘Better the devil you know? An analysis of employers’ bargaining preferences in the Australian hotel industry’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 25-44. Craig, L. and Brown, J.E. (2015), ‘Nonstandard work and nonwork activities, time alone and with others: Can weekend workers make up lost time?’, Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 3 – 23. These short readings also count as ‘credible’ sources: Grattan, M. (2016), ‘Penalty rate cut will hurt economy wihtout helping business: Labor’, The Conversation, March 21, < http://theconversation.com/penalty-rate-cut-will-hurt-economy-without-helping-business-labor-56571> [website], date accessed 7 February 2017. Jackson, S. (2015), ‘Frozen wages, insecure jobs, struggling youth, rising inequality, shrinking unions… join the dots’, The Conversation, November 26, < https://theconversation.com/frozen-wages-insecure-jobs-struggling-youth-rising-inequality-shrinking-unions-join-the-dots-50981 > [website], date accessed 27 November 2015. Markey, R. (2015), ‘Myths about penalty rates and those who rely on them’, The Conversation, November 16, [website], date accessed 5 February, 2016. Duncan, A, and Daly, A. (2015), ‘Fact Check Q&A: Are a lot of cafes and restaurants closing because of Sunday penalty rates?’, The Conversation, August 17, < https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-a-lot-of-cafes-and-restaurants-closing-because-of-sunday-penalty-rates-45951 > Walsh, L. (2015), ‘A day of rest: the costs of removing penalty rates’, The Conversation, 3 February, [website], date accessed 3 February 2015. Woodman, D. (2014), ‘Before you call for penalty rates to be cut, try working a few Sundays’, The Conversation, 19 August, [website], date accessed 6 February 2015. Desloires, V. and Dunckley, N. (2015), ‘Employers step up efforts to get rid of penalty rates’, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 January, page 1, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/anznews/docview/1641402602/8E1DE46003374D59PQ/3?accountid=36155 [database], date accessed 6 February 2015. (Go to Library > e-resources > Proquest ANZ Newstand to search for this article.) Hutchens, G. (2015), ‘Gap between rich and poor at highest level in decades: IMF’, Sydney Morning Herald, June 16 [database], Australian Council of Trade Unions (2015), ‘Turnbull must reject Productivity Commission call to cut take-home pay’, 21 December [website], date accessed 5 February 2016. Australian Council of Trade Unions (2014), ‘Employer push to cut penalty rates before Christmas’, Media release, 23 December, http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/8410/acturelease-141223-xmas%20penalty%20rates.pdf [PDF], date accessed 6 February 2015. Wooden, M. (2012), ‘Penalty Rates in Awards: do we really need them?’, The Conversation, 10 September, < http://theconversation.edu.au/penalty-rates-in-awards-do-we-really-need-them-9255> [website], date accessed 19 February 2013. Submission requirements  The electronic submission should:  Be about 1,500 words.  Be written in essay-format.  Acknowledge sources correctly using the Harvard referencing style.  Show understanding of a six scholarly or otherwise credible sources.  Show knowledge of the position of at least two employer associations from primary sources. A ‘primary source’ is something produced by that employer association; ie. a speech, a media appearance, a media release, a report, a submission, a webpage, etc.  Include critical analysis (for a credit or better).  Have been compared to the marking criteria below. Marking criteria and standards In employment relations, everything is connected to everything else. It is difficult to isolate particular factors and mark them separately e.g. it’s hard to make a persuasive argument with poor or slapdash referencing. It is hard to address all aspects of an argument if one’s writing and paragraphing is not sophisticated. This marking guide is to provide some guidance and feedback; it is not designed to be broken down to one or two marks here or there on particular categories but is more qualitative in nature. Further conversation and explanation may be useful to you; make an appointment with your tutor. CRITERIA STANDARDS Referencing 10% Reference list accurately and consistently records sources – including electronic sources! Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory Sources are correctly cited (frequency, accuracy and consistency of in-text citations). Unsatisfactory/Satisfactory CRITERIA FAIL (0-49) PASS (50-64) CREDIT (65-74) DISTINCTION (75-84) HIGH DISTINCTION (85-100) Foundations for argument: knowledge and analysis (30%) Identification and explanation of interests around regulation of work and the employment relationship. Incomplete or confusing description. Lack of focus on interests around regulation of the employment relationship in particular. Muddled about stakeholders’ goals. Some reasonable assessment of employers’ interests around the IR system. A reasonable description about employer interests around the IR system, with analytical consideration of goals. A persuasive description about employers’ interests relative to other stakeholders beyond their espoused views, with analytical consideration of goals. As for distinction, but with thorough analysis of espoused views using ER theory. Demonstrated knowledge of features of the IR system that affect the stakeholders’ interests and power, with efficacious choices in selection of details attended to. Incomplete or inaccurate description. Inability to focus on issues of importance to stakeholders, perhaps arising from lack of reading and participation in 200614. A sound description of the issues (penalty rates, employment, equality, etc.) from employer associations’ viewpoints. Some gaps or misplaced emphasis. An efficient and accurate description of the issues from employer associations’ viewpoints. As for credit, but drawing from a range of authors’/ actors’ views. As for distinction, but drawing from a range of authors’/ actors’ views. Some critique and evaluation of claims. Analysis and argument (40%) Quality of critical analysis in producing a logical and persuasive argument about the relationship between particular aspects of IR regulation with stakeholders’ interests. Illogical or confusing attempt, perhaps from misunderstanding or last minute rushing. Some logical connections between the IR system and employment and equality. Only partial evaluation of interests of employers. A reasonable argument made connecting the IR system and employment and equality Maybe some gaps in the logic or knowledge base. Some evaluation of interests of employers. A persuasive argument, logically consistent, demonstrating thorough understanding the connection between the IR system and employment and equality. Appreciation of stakeholders’ interests. More than one side of the argument considered. As for distinction, but with reflection on argument relative to employment relations theory and practice. Reading and research (10%) Argument built on sufficient number/diversity of sources (scholarly and credible primary sources). Credible and scholarly sources overlooked, or some scholarly sources only partially understood/ applied. Scholarly and credible sources form analytical base for essay. Scholarly and credible sources form analytical base for essay; some evaluation of sources. Scholarly and credible sources form basis for essay, with judicious choice and interpretation. Scholarly and credible sources form basis for essay, with strong critical evaluation of particular sources. Research has been thorough and creative; at least two employer associations’ viewpoints on penalty rates have been examined. Choice of information perhaps indicates lack of attention or poor understanding of the task. Insufficient use of sources suggested in the Learning Guide. A sound choice of material, based on understanding of the ERship and task. Required readings have influenced the essay. As for pass, with broader reading influencing the essay and/or creative approach to research. As for credit, with efficient use of a range of sources. As for distinction, with superior theoretical insight demonstrated in research paths taken. Essay communication strategy (10%) Report uses ER language correctly. Many errors or ambiguities. Accurate use of key terms. Some imprecision. Accurate and precise use of ER language. As for credit, but also theoretical language. As for distinction, efficacious application of theoretical and practical language. Essay coherently, logically and consistently conveys message from start to end. Structure is disorganised. Paragraphing unconventional. Organised and clear structure that carries an argument. Paragraphs represent steps in the argument. Organised and clear structure that carries an argument efficiently. Organised and clear structure that makes the argument persuasive and compelling. Organised and clear structure; an innovative approach to making the argument in the most effective way. Introduction Vague or confusing. Reader has no idea where the essay will unfold. Introduction partially states the argument that will be made, and the scope and structure Thorough introduction. Clear statement of purpose, the ‘answer’ (argument to be made), and structure. As for credit, with an engaging style. Well written. As for credit, with an engaging style. Well written. Conclusion Vague or confusing. Conclusion summarises the essay; implications and significance unstated. Thorough and efficient summary of the essay; implications and significance explained. Thorough, efficient summary; discussion of implications and significance demonstrates theoretical and practical appreciation of ER. Thorough, efficient summary that engages the reader; discussion of implications and significance demonstrates theoretical and practical appreciation of ER. Professionalism. Many errors and a layout means it takes longer to make sense of the essay than it should. Has been proofread; the needs of a busy reader considered. Very few errors or distractions; an attractive and easy to follow layout. As for credit. As for credit.