The new Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) leader Sally McManus' remarks that she doesn't have a problem with people breaking "unjust laws" provoked inevitable outrage.

Business groups and conservative politicians from the Prime Minister down condemned her views, while the Opposition Leader also distanced himself and the Labor Party from the new ACTU secretary.

Part of the context of Ms McManus' comment was her view the right to strike in Australia was far too restrictive.

"It shouldn't be so hard for workers in our country to be able to take industrial action when they need to," she told Leigh Sales on ABC's 7.30.

Given this, it's surprising there's been so little analysis on where Australia's laws on industrial action sit compared to international norms.

And on that score, Ms McManus has a point.

Under international law, the right to strike is recognised as a fundamental human right.

The United Nations (UN) declared "strike action to be a right" and "one of the principal means by which workers and their associations may legitimately promote and defend their economic and social interests" from its early days soon after World War II.

The restrictions Australia has placed on that right place us at odds with international conventions — a point made repeatedly by the UN agency that oversees labour standards, the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 8 minutes 38 seconds 8 m Sally McManus says it is OK for workers to break "unjust laws"

"It's absolutely straightforward," said Professor Andrew Stewart of Adelaide University — one of the nation's foremost experts on labour law.

"The ILO for the past 20 to 30 years has told governments of both political persuasions that we are in breach of international labour standards."

Australia is regularly warned by the ILO our laws are out of step.

Just as regularly, that advice is quietly ignored — by Labor and Coalition governments.

And that's just part of the story: Australia's laws against industrial action are not only in breach of international law, they are without peer among advanced economies with a tradition of civil liberty in oppressing the right to strike.

"Not only are we flagrantly in breach but our laws are also so restrictive on the right to strike that they are way out of step with the laws of just about every other developed country," Professor Stewart said.

How does Australia stack up against the rest of the world?

Few realise it, but the United Kingdom and even the US afford more liberty to workers to take industrial action.

How do Australia's laws breach international standards? Fundamentally.

"The right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organisations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests," the ILO's committee of experts wrote in a key statement in 1983.

"These interests not only have to do with obtaining better working conditions and pursuing collective demands of an occupational nature but also with seeking solutions to economic and social policy questions and to labour problems of any kind which are of direct concern to the workers."

That's a world away from Australia's laws.

Political strikes a complete no-no

International human rights and labour conventions support a general right to strike, with exceptions, for example, to maintain essential services.

In contrast, in Australia, industrial action is generally unlawful.

Workers have only limited rights to take "protected" industrial action free from threat of fines, monetary damages or dismissal.

The legal and administrative hoops workers and unions have to jump through before pursuing industrial action in Australia are onerous.

Industrial action can only take place during a defined enterprise bargaining period in pursuit of a new collective agreement.

A union has to apply to the industrial tribunal for a protected action order, which can only be granted if the union demonstrates the union and its members have been genuinely trying to reach agreement.

A secret ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission has to be conducted in advance of any action, and at least 50 per cent of the workers being asked to take the action have to vote in favour.

Unions have to specify in the ballot what form the industrial action may take and give the employer three days' notice before pursuing any action, during which time the employer is free to apply to a tribunal or court to have the strike quashed.

There are also severe limits on what workers can strike for that are at odds with international law.

In Australia, "political" strikes are a complete no-no.

Stopping work in support of, or in protest against, laws that directly impact on workers' rights or living standards is completely unlawful.

Not so under international conventions.

The ILO has found strikes in pursuit of higher minimum wage, or a change in economic policy to decrease prices and unemployment, "are legitimate and within the normal field of activity of trade union organisations", while banning a general strike protesting against the social and labour consequences of the government's economic policy is, "a serious violation of freedom of association".

Sympathy strikes outlawed

Pursuing a common claim across an industry in Australia is unlawful "pattern bargaining"; under international labour standards, it is perfectly acceptable, as are strikes in pursuit of industry-wide claims for higher wages or better conditions.

Sympathy strikes in Australia are completely outlawed — under secondary boycotts laws, unions and workers who engage in sympathy strikes are exposed to huge potential penalties and damages claims.

Yet, under international law, sympathy strikes are permitted, provided the original strike is lawful.

Basic principle of the right to strike: It is a right which workers and their organisations are entitled to enjoy

It is a right which workers and their organisations are entitled to enjoy Committee on Freedom of Association has reduced the number of categories who may be deprived of this right

Committee on Freedom of Association has reduced the number of categories who may be deprived of this right It has linked the exercise of the right to strike to the objective of promoting and defending the economic and social interests of workers

It has linked the exercise of the right to strike to the objective of promoting and defending the economic and social interests of workers It states the legitimate exercise of the right to strike should not entail prejudicial penalties of any sort, which would imply acts of anti-union discrimination Source: International Labour Office

Equally at odds with international law are the restrictions in Australia on what kinds of conditions and safeguards workers can pursue through collective bargaining.

Workers here can't negotiate for their own job security.

Bans or restrictions on the use of casual labour and contract labour in enterprise agreements are unlawful, as are "non-employment issues" such as environmental concerns or requirements for corporate social responsibility.

Where the balance best lies between Australia's highly restrictive approach to industrial action and the ILO's view of it as a fundamental right is a matter for legitimate debate.

Strikes dogged Australia in the 1970s and 1980s, although strike action was formally illegal.

The shift to enterprise bargaining, combined with a very limited and codified right to strike, has helped to beat the scourge of inflation that used to dog the economy, as strong unions won pay rises through strike action which flowed on through the workforce — although globalisation and cheap imports from overseas have played at least as a big a role.

Days lost to industrial action have dwindled, and more productive workplaces may be another benefit — although there is no correlation between tougher laws against unions and strikes and higher productivity overall.

But have the laws gone too far?

Wages are stagnating, with the lowest wages growth in the history of the current index undermining consumption and economic growth.

Leaving aside the argument the right to strike is a fundamental human right, there may be an economic case for making it easier for workers to take industrial action in pursuit of higher pay and better conditions.

One thing is certain — there is a new broom at the ACTU, and it will be pursuing sweeping reforms.