Over the past two decades, industrial relations scholarship has observed a trend towards an increasingly punitive industrial environment along with the ‘re-regulation’ of labour law. Absent from much of this literature, however, has been an empirical and historical measurement or comparison of the scale and quality of this systemic change. By surveying coercive and penal federal industrial legislation over the period 1901–2020, this study shows empirically that over the last 40 years, there has been a steep increase in the amount of coercive federal labour legislation in Australia. It further measures and compares the volume of coercive labour legislation enacted specifically against ‘labour’ and ‘capital’ or both throughout the same period (1901–2020). Analysis reveals a correlation between a high volume of coercive labour legislation with low levels of trade union power and organisation. Argued here is that coercive labour legislation has been crucial to transitioning from a liberal conciliation and arbitration model of Australian industrial relations towards a neoliberal framework of employment legislation. In the former, regulation was more collective, informal and egalitarian (embodied by the sociological concept of ‘associative democracy’). Under a neoliberal framework, regulation is now more individualised, technical, punitive and rarely enforced, resulting in less equal material outcomes.

在过去的二十年里，劳资关系奖学金观察到一种趋势，即随着劳动法的“重新管制”，惩罚性工业环境日益恶化。然而，在许多文献中缺少对这种系统性变化的规模和质量的经验和历史测量或比较。通过对1901年至2020年期间的强制性和惩罚性联邦工业立法进行调查，该研究从经验上表明，在过去40年中，澳大利亚的强制性联邦劳工立法数量急剧增加。它进一步衡量和比较了在同一时期（1901年至2020年）专门针对“劳力”和“资本”或两者兼而有之的强制性劳动立法的数量。分析表明，强制性劳动立法的数量高与工会权力和组织的低水平之间存在相关性。这里争论的是，强制性劳动立法对于从澳大利亚劳资关系的自由调解和仲裁模式向新的自由主义就业立法框架的转变至关重要。在前者中，管制是集体，非正式和平均主义的（体现在“联合民主”的社会学概念上）。在新自由主义的框架下，监管现在更加个性化，技术性，惩罚性并且很少得到执行，从而导致实质性成果的平等程度降低。这里争论的是，强制性劳动立法对于从澳大利亚劳资关系的自由调解和仲裁模式向新的自由主义就业立法框架的转变至关重要。在前者中，管制是集体，非正式和平均主义的（体现在“联合民主”的社会学概念上）。在新自由主义的框架下，监管现在更加个性化，技术性，惩罚性并且很少得到执行，从而导致实质性成果的平等程度降低。这里争论的是，强制性劳动立法对于从澳大利亚劳资关系的自由调解和仲裁模式向新的自由主义就业立法框架的转变至关重要。在前者中，管制是集体，非正式和平均主义的（体现在“联合民主”的社会学概念上）。在新自由主义的框架下，监管现在更加个性化，技术性，惩罚性并且很少得到执行，从而导致实质性成果的平等程度降低。