They were not contracts or contracts of employment as we would now recognise them, although throughout the period of the Acts they were developing into such. These were people who had perhaps worked as servants when they were young, single and with no savings, but having worked as servants had gained sufficient financial independence to lease a cottage and some land, and work on their own plot, as well as hiring themselves out to do a variety of work for a master.
Unless a labourer or artificer could demonstrate that they were usefully occupied, they were obliged to serve. Labour was viewed as a resource of the community to be put to the service of the community via the authority of the master. This tradition, a sense that masters had a jurisdictional right over the work and bodies of a certain type of person, underpinned the legitimacy of the restriction on the movements of labourers and artificers.
Workers held a property right in their energies and labour, which they sold or leased freely to the master. It became increasingly illegitimate for a master to exercise corporal punishment on his servants or employees. However, the right to withhold wages for work completed remained. This was an economic power considered legitimate as a device to discourage workers from leaving before their time was up.
Gradually, depending on the period and the country, harsher and more extreme forms of dominance — corporal punishment, imprisonment and eventually withholding of wages — were repealed. The situation was now one where workers had gained a significant degree of freedom in that they were, in theory at least, able to refuse to enter into a contract with an employer and free to leave without being thrown into prison.
- Longarm 261: Longarm and the Golden Goddess!
- Edgar Lee Masters.
- Le Syndrome du sycophante: Coulisses et intimité dune lutte anti-drogue (French Edition);
- 2. The Truest Capture;
- Messtechnische Grundlagen und Einführung in die Dynamometrie (German Edition).
This was a social freedom supported by law. Additionally, the freedom to contract or not was limited by economic constraints. Most workers had to enter into some sort of agreement with some sort of employer in order to live, a reality which undermined the ideal of freedom of contract. Employers wanted workers whom they could control, not free agents who could come and go as they pleased.
It was widely believed it applied only to servants in husbandry, hired for a year and workers whose wage rates were set by local justices. Thus the first Master and Servant Act of set out to address the deficiencies and doubts relating to the coverage of the Elizabethan Code. They did not run their own business as the modern sense implies, but they were not subordinated or obligated in a pervasive way to another.
The Master's Voice
In Australia, the coverage of master and servant laws was generally wider than those in Britain. The Secretary of State refused the Western Australian Bill because he thought that nearly all workers in WA would be caught by it and be subjected to fines and imprisonment on summary conviction. That is, the belief that it was appropriate for some workers to appear before a magistrate and be imprisoned, but not others.
It was considered legitimate for some workers to operate outside the reach of master and servant laws. Stewards, bailiffs and some craft workers worked for a single employer in a way which we would recognise today as employee-like. Nevertheless, because of their high status, they were not subjected to the subordination and restrictions assumed either by local or common law, or by master and servant statute.
The South Australian and Tasmanian laws were also disallowed for being too sweeping in scope, too arbitrary, and giving masters too much power. In Britain and particularly in Australia, masters took advantage of the subordination and coercion permitted by master and servant laws to incorporate, by means of naming actual occupations, nearly all of the less free worker categories and some of the independent ones.
His Master’s Voice | bajakhana
The idea of status underpins not only the restrictions on movement in master and servant laws, but also the imbalance in their sanctions. In this section, I show how the provisions of master and servant laws coerced workers by targeting the source of employee power as it manifested itself in the 19 th century. Master and servant provisions, therefore, focused on entry and exit restrictions. An examination of the Victorian Act, demonstrates the areas of concern manifest in and the penalties applied by the master and servant legislation. The penalties for employing a servant without a discharge certificate or not providing a former employee with one, fell to the master.
However for masters, the only penalty that involved imprisonment was if they defaulted on an order to pay wages  or actually forged a discharge certificate.
The split between body and voice
The lack of balance in the severity of the penalties is stark. Gaol was an option for all servant offences, except absconding with an advance where gaol was mandatory. If not gaol, then an unspecified amount of wages could be abated. Imprisonment was only an option for a master if he or she defaulted on paying back wages and the sale of chattels fell through.
The penalties were harsher under Australian law compared to British law. This reflected the punitive nature of law and order in a convict settlement and the uncertainty of the line between free and convict labour:. The unfairness of the penalties is arguably a direct reflection of the feudal concept of status — it is acceptable to imprison one party in the employment relationship but not the other. In the early- to mid th century in Australia, absconding was the major offence up to , representing 40 per cent of cases between and , and 39 per cent of workers convicted of absconding were imprisoned.
Certainly misconduct and damaging property were forbidden and carried severe penalties, but these were simply inevitable consequences of the main game — the restriction of the free movement of the servant from one job to another.
- Outperform with Expectations-Based Management: A State-of-the-Art Approach to Creating and Enhancing Shareholder Value;
- Acid Sugar Cane.
- The Journal (Her Master's Voice).
- MICHAEL KINNEAR'S WEBSITE INTO EARLY SOUND RECORDINGS.
- Leon Blum: Humanist in Politics.
Masters who could secure this degree of control over another were surely entitled to a similar degree of control over their behaviour once in the relationship; a belief inextricably caught up with concepts of status. At the start of the 20 th century, the coercion of labour by employers began to diminish. The feudal idea of status, whereby masters had a legitimate right to coerce their servants, and which was reinforced by law, started to give way to the idea of a contract between equal parties: the employer and the employee. The relevance of the Acts faded away as an accommodation between the two groups was made through a system of compulsory conciliation and arbitration.
Social liberalism, higher standards of living and education drove legislation which protected the employee and worker, rather than the reverse. Master and servant provisions were used to counter these actions through charges of absence, absconding, neglect of work or breaching agreement. This was largely because such action, directed against a group of people, politicised the strategy and laid open the one-sidedness and harshness of the laws. As Frank says about the successful English protests against the proposed enlargement of master and servant laws:.
As an anti-union tactic, master and servant laws became less and less successful as trade unions grew in size, public popularity and political strength. When Australia became a sovereign country in , employee power, expressed through trade unions, was given a legitimate and central role,  though not without a struggle. The concept of status was changing and being challenged by these social and economic changes. Increasingly, status came to refer to a category of worker who was either covered or not covered by protective employment legislation.
Sorry, you do not have access to this article.
Status as a marker of the right to access the protection of a variety of employment legislation now has wide acceptance in Australian labour law, although the boundaries of eligibility for this protection have been, and are still, contested. But the new notion of status is different from the master and servant notion of status which was a marker of master superiority and dominance.
For most of the 20 th century, labour relations balanced the needs of employee and employer, and regulated their respective power through State intervention via the conciliation and arbitration system. While there were elements of command and control, for example, when the Court and then the AIRC exercised its arbitration powers, there was a large and significant co-regulation as well as self-regulation component relating to collective bargaining, as manifested in internal firm or industry wide codes of conduct and human resources policies.
This system delivered, for the most part, decent wages and conditions, and rising productivity. Industrial relations and the site of contest over labour coercion began to change from a centralised conciliation and arbitration focus to an enterprise bargaining focus. By , rather than intervening directly and setting standards, the central tribunal took on an indirect certification role.
The award system still existed, but enterprise bargaining became the chief way Australian workers achieved pay increases and improved conditions. Towards the end of the 20 th century, collective bargaining at the enterprise rather than the industry level became dominant. With the election of the conservative government under John Howard in there also came a focus on individual agreement making at the expense of collective bargaining.
Along the continuum of coercion of labour, non-unionised employees or employees with little bargaining power once again became vulnerable to the economic coercion of employers. In summary, while the value and application of the conciliation and arbitration system was and is highly contested, for most of the 20 th century Australia had an industrial relations system in which the State moderated the coercive power of employers and employees alike through an independent body.
However, in the late 20 th century with the WR Act , employment legislation began again to prefer the employer to the employee. Like master and servant laws, Work Choices was a classic form of command and control regulation. Work Choices used an ideology of individualisation to coerce labour. As a result, master and servant laws targeted the individual contract of employment, such as it was. By the 20 th century, employees had won the legal right to take up and leave a contract of employment.
The site of battle moved from the entry and exit of the contract to the contents of the contract. Employees increased their power to negotiate good terms and conditions by forming trade unions and bargaining collectively. As discussed earlier, master and servant laws were less successful at countering collective action, not because the offences and penalties could not be applied to groups of workers as well as to individuals, but because public opinion, when alerted to the situation through trade union meetings and messages, and media coverage of group trials, would not stand for it.
I argue that Work Choices targeted collectivism in order to reduce it as a source of employee power. Work Choices quite radically diminished conditions and collective bargaining. Stewart argues that Howard had a powerful conviction that:. I suggest that this does not explain the micromanagement of so much of Work Choices.
An alternative rationale for the conundrum of Work Choices is that the Howard government prescribed so many conditions, and set so many boundaries on the manner in which employers and employees interacted and on the contents of agreements, because it needed to re-educate employers to take on a role not experienced by them since the 19 th century.
The underpinning rationale behind Work Choices was not that the government believed that increasing employer power would make workplaces more productive, but because it had an atavistic belief in the rightness of the feudal concept of status. To support this contention, the following sections examine the similarities between Work Choices and master and servant laws in the idea of coercion.
I shall look at how the restrictions on collective bargaining affected the right to freedom of contract and diminished the concept of cooperation in the employment relationship.
I examine the impact that the prohibited content of workplace agreements and the dismantling of the test case function had on collective bargaining. I conclude that these provisions enhanced managerial prerogative and represented an extreme attack on the power of employees. I also suggest that a clue to the reason behind this attack can be found in the dissonance between the promotion of employer freedom and the restriction of employer freedom in Work Choices.
This dissonance represents the struggle to introduce 19 th century ideas, last seen in master and servant laws, into the 21st century. We have seen how the idea that the power of the master came from a jurisdictional right, emanating from ancient social norms, gradually transformed into the idea that the power of the master came from a right freely given by servants or employees. This was the idea of freedom of contract. Freedom of contract was, and is still, constrained by the economic imbalance between employer and employee.
This inequality has been addressed in modern times by collective bargaining, which is globally accepted as a legitimate form of employment contracting. Inequality can result in the form of regulation being imposed by one party over the other.
But historically, Australia attempted to redress imbalances in bargaining power by establishing unions as central players in the bargaining process and the AIRC as the arbiter of disputes. Under the traditional model, the AIRC had a range of powers including the ability to make binding awards through arbitration of disputes between organisations of employers and employees.