Two conflicting trends are at work in Human Resources Management. On the one hand there is a growing trend toward high commitment policies designed to develop broadly trained employees who identify with their organization and who are prepared and trusted to exercize high orders of discretion. Organizations with such strategies are marked by participation, lifetime employment, career flexibility, new forms of compensation, and generous fringes. At the moment, however, these strategies are being threatened by corporate restructuring, downsizing, and leveraged buyouts, all of which discourage investment in human capital. But even if high commitment organizations dominate the heartland of the economy in the future, many in the labor force will be denied their benefits.

As Australia debates the possibility of major changes in its labor laws, I am told that there are those who argue it should copy elements of the American system. How weird! While I love my country I never thought of it as a model of good labor relations. But based on the assumption that American experience has some relevance, this paper consists of three parts. The first describes recent developments in American employee relations broadly conceived (not just union-management relations). After all, if you want to copy U.S. practices you should know what they are. Next I comment briefly on one major but perhaps insufficiently recognized difference between our countries’ labor relations: the U.S. is more legalistic. The final section deals specifically at some proposed changes in Australian labor law, supposedly suggested by American practice, though this practice may be misunderstood.