The most important federal law protecting workplace rights is that relating to work choice. This model compliance legislation provides rights and a procedure to follow when those rights have been violated. Where this model legislation fails is that there is no obligation for an employer to identify discrimination in the workplace, educate employees, or provide a workplace policy ( Smith 2006 cited by Bray et al. 2014). The weakest people in society have the most to gain from collective action. It is therefore assumed that women have the most to lose from the introduction of work choice, as they are more likely to depend on rewards (Peetz 2007). Peetz argues that women have less bargaining power than men and will therefore be worse off than men when it comes to job choices. Data show that the position of women has deteriorated in the labor market since 2001, with the ratio of hourly earnings of women to men falling from 91.1% in 2001 to 88.7% in 2004 (Peetz 2007 ). Men are four times more likely to initiate salary negotiations than women, and when negotiations are initiated by women, they are significantly less productive (Babcock and Laschever, 2003). Men are also more likely to reward other men with a promotion (Kanter, 1977 cited by Peetz 2007). As power is taken away from women, they are more vulnerable to harassment and discrimination in the workplace. A disproportionate 75 percent of those who experience physical sexual harassment are women (Peetz 2007). Workplace protections have been removed by exemptions to Australia's Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Exemptions granted to religious institutions enable unfair and unreasonable discrimination against women. Protection against discrimination against women in the labor market remains insufficient, particularly in the sector