An AWA could override employment conditions in state or territory laws except those relating to occupational health and safety, workers' compensation, or training arrangements.
[1] Mining companies pushed the agreements with some success, offering substantial increases in pay to workers who chose to sign an AWA.
[4] The most common methods of setting pay for all employees were registered collective agreement (38.3%), unregistered individual arrangement (31.2%) and award only (20.0%).
For exceptional individuals in a workplace, or industries with a labour shortage, the union movement argues that common law contracts are sufficient.
For example, the Australian Services Union warned members: AWAs are about one thing: tipping the balance of power more firmly towards your employer and away from you.
[10] The Howard Government and most business groups maintained that AWAs were mutually beneficial for employers and employees, often promoting the view that 'flexibility' is paramount: AWAs give employers and employees flexibility in setting wages and conditions, and enable them to agree on arrangements that suit their workplaces and individual preferences.
[11]In April 2007 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that it had received unpublished Government spreadsheets that showed 27.8% of the agreements had stripped away conditions that were intended to be protected by law.
[15] However, the changes were not retrospective, leaving tens of thousands of workers on contracts that have removed conditions without the compensation that would be required under the current test.