by Peter Lewis
The survey, conducted between February 12 and 14, found that:
- 44 per cent of full-time workers believed workplace stress was affecting their health
-53 per cent of full-time workers said their social life was affected.
- and 30 per cent of full-time workers said their sex life was affected.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa said the survey results showed that working hours and work intensity could no longer be regarded as merely a "workplace issue".
"These statistics show that what is going on in the workplace is effecting just about every aspect of our quality of life.
"It's not good enough for executives to look at productivity and profit margins, there are more fundamental issues about our very existence at play here."
Mr Costa said trade unions had a constructive role to play in improving working life, including increasing job security and assisting members negotiate predictable and regular hours so that work did not dominate the rest of their lives.
Strategies to promote this agenda will be discussed at the Novotel today, where NSW union officials participate in the Work/Time/Life conference, part of an ongoing effort by the union movement to tackle work overload issues.
"It's time for trade unions have to take up these new issues. Many workers are happy with the wage they are receiving, but believe they have no control over the rest of their lives.
"Particularly in the emerging gold-collar sectors, we are finding workers have forfeited any sort of control over the hours they work. If ever there was a time when they were working together to stand up for themselves, it appears to be now."
by Noel Hester
The programmers - who develop sensitive software used in the management of Japanese power stations - have been working to rule over excessive hours and unpaid overtime.
A notice for strike action has brought management to the table after stalling for months.
The programmers - members of the Australian Services Union - have been negotiating with Toshiba management for more than six months for a new Enterprise Agreement.
According to the Australian Industry Group, at present there isn't a single collective agreement covering software developers in Australia.
Union delegate Owen Caughley says they have been frustrated by Toshiba's refusal to deal with their concerns.
'We got our first concrete "offer" on Christmas Eve - almost 4 months after we first approached the company,' he said.
'Toshiba's offer was pathetic - a 38 hour week with single rates for overtime and all in the form of individual contracts.'
'We want penalty rates for overtime, and an EBA.'
Owen Caughley says the issues of excessive hours and unpaid overtime is widespread throughout the industry.
'Most software people do at least 45 hours a week and less than a third get paid for overtime,' he said.
'However, the biggest danger is burnout. I've seen people after a week of crazy hours and they're like zombies.'
'It's clearly outrageous and shows why the issue is incredibly important to us and others in the industry.'
by Peter Lewis
Professor Ron McCallum, professor of industrial law at the University of Sydney, described Jeff Shaw's 1996 reform package as "sitting at the apex of international industrial law".
One of the architects of the Act, McCallum said he was proud the laws had remained true to principles of HB Higgins, who "believed that the state should intervene into working life for fairness sake."
He pointed to the easy access to enterprise bargaining, ground-breaking industrial awards like the one covering the 2000 Olympics and important inquiries like that into gender pay equity, to back his high ranking for the laws.
And he said the main industrial parties, both trade unions and the employer groups, had confidence in the system because of their central role in the drafting of the laws.
"Mr Shaw inherited a system that was in a shambles and he has definitely transformed it into the strongest and most dynamic system in the country, " Professor McCallum said.
Below NSW, he placed the Queensland system which is currently following the NSW path, followed by the moderate South Australian system -- although it is now facing the deregulators, followed by the "Federal slash Victorian" system, with the WA laws and their secret ballots and political donations at the bottom of the heap.
Internationally, McCallum said the NSW legislation could only be rivalled by Nelson Mandela's new South African laws, but that these were still "untested in a country only now coming to terms with democracy."
On other leading industrial countries, he gave the following evaluations:
- USA - "the laws have not been updated since 1959 and only cover about ten per cent of the workforce."
- Canada - "has been massively de-unionised in recent years".
- UK - "The right-wing Blair Government is going down the US path with laws designed to de-unionise Britain, including the US-style ballots before unions are recognised in a workplace. "
- Germany - "No reform since 1976, during which time you've had a very conservative government"
- Sweden - "the system is crumbling and they're looking for answers."
- Japan - "their laws are only good for the top third of the workforce.
Professor McCallum said the Higgins model of industrial law should have been a model for the rest of the world in the 1900s, and now as deregulation fails to deliver benefits to the workforce, predicted the NSW system could provide similar inspiration in the years to come.
"This really is legislation for a new millennium, it contains relevant provisions like protection from video surveillance in the workplace ... There'll always be a need to update the laws, but they set a strong framework for dealing with change," he said.
The biggest threat to the system, McCallum believes, would be a change of government.
"You can spend years building up a school, but the wrong appointment of the headmaster can send it crashing down. Likewise, the wrong attitude of government to this system will see it crash down quickly."
by Steve Turner
The PSA members have closed the Museum at 3 pm on four consecutive Fridays in January and February for what they have proclaimed as "15 Minutes of Shame".
The move followed the Museum's Board and Executive retrenchment of 14 staff and the deletion of a further 6 positions from an already very slim staff of 48.
The restructure was announced on 14 January to take effect from 12 February, 1999.
The Museum further indicated it will not renew the contracts or replace the seven staff who recently left the organisation.
Their reasoning? Financial necessity.
The 15 minutes of shame protest mirrors the time frame which staff were individually allocated to advise them whether or not their job had been deleted.
The restructure moves were made without any prior consultation with the members concerned or the PSA.
PSA requests to discuss the matter were continually refused. Subsequent pleas for a meeting with the Board including the Executive Chairman and full disclosure of the Museum's financial position also fell on deaf ears.
The union and its members in the area believe that the Museum simply will not function effectively when the ill advised restructure goes through.
They have requested that the restructure be withdrawn and that a Planning Committee be established to look at the exhibition program for the year.
The PSA has taken the matter to the Industrial Relations Commission to obtain an award. The parties appeared on 3 and 9 February.
A further application to prevent the dismissal of 21 staff went to compulsory conference on Tuesday, 9 February before Justice Schmidt. These proceedings led to a resolution on the industrial matters after 7 hours of tense negotiation.
The PSA withdrew its application after staff were offered positions in the new structure and commitments were given to negotiate and consult on other areas that were to be restructured. Management agreed to an extension until June to allow this to occur.
Of great concern was the Museum management's deletion of the position of Cinemateque Project Officer and the apparent abandonment of this project. Negotiations were unable to save this project leader.
A PSA sponsored rally was held outside the Museum on 12 February to highlight the situation. This rally focussed on the changing artistic direction of the MCA, the horrific way that staff were treated during this process and a call for a continued commitment to the Cinemateque Project.
Another major concern to the PSA was the typical reaction to cut staff to meet a financial problem not of the staff's making. The PSA will lobby the University of Sydney (as owner of the Museum) and the Government to help with funding.
by Megan Elliott
We survived it ... for some of us, it was our twentieth time, but for this avid cycler it was only the second, and I reckon surviving Tamworth puts you in the same league as surviving 10 rounds with Mike Tyson, and in Tamworth you get to keep your ears (you need 'em to keep your hat on).
We're talking more than 2000 gigs in 10 days, more than 37 degree heat, more than 40 000 punters, more than 200 performers and more than your fair share of flies. We're talking camping, we're talking boot scooters, we're talking TIARA's and Golden Guitars, we're talking: you gotta see it to believe it.
We're talking signing autographs, selling CDs, we're talking smiles stretched wide, ulcers on the back of our throats, some of us are talking 20 gigs in 10 days and then driving to whichever corner of Australia home is. We're saying we never want to see a steak sandwich or the food at Wests Leagues, well ... for a while at least.
CONGRATULATIONS to all of us that took Tamworth by storm. Congratulations to the country performers, the circus performers, the comics, the musicians, the actors and the buskers. We survived.
For those who don't know, Tamworth is not just gals and guys with guitars, it's a huge event which draws on the incredibly diverse membership base of our union from all over the country. (Hint: don't be surprised if next time your speaking with a voiceover artist, an actor or a sound technician if they tell you that they also play bass, slide or sing with a country band).
This year for the first time the Alliance held free workshops for performers on self management. It was part of the inaugural Musicians' Headquarters, which provided performers with a respite from the heat, a cuppa, and if you really needed it, a bit of a lie down.
Around 65 people attended these workshops over the 5 days they were on, and the feedback was incredibly positive. We discussed the legal landscape in which we work, contracts, what to do when we can only secure a verbal contract to make sure we have a leg to stand on, agents legislation and negotiation skills.
Performers at the festival are wanting to join their union, they understand the need to be organised if we are going to increase the fees and conditions for performers, if we are going to change in any way the stranglehold that some agents have over some venues.
The success of these workshops was due not just to the sexy image the Alliance used to advertise them (sex and guns this year), nor to yours truly talking them up all over town, but also to the recommendation that union members gave to their peers to attend.
The best way for people to understand the benefits of joining their union is to hear it from their colleagues mouth, and the only way we will increase our membership and strength is to get more people to join. That leaves it up to each of us to include speaking about the Alliance whenever we are speaking about the state of the industry or about our work as performers.
The Tamworth Country Music Festival is a fantastic example of performers reaching out to other performers about the benefits of joining.
Members introduced me to other performers and on a number of occasions complete strangers introduced themselves to me, slyly showing a membership card and doing a bit of a victory dance when we realised that another MEAA member had entered the building. Fantastic stuff.
In the same way that we as independent performers are working towards being organised, it is becoming increasingly obvious to many of us that employers are also getting organised: making joint decisions to cap their entertainment budget and the maximum fee for acts.
Being better organised than employers is the only answer to this: there are more of us than them, and we need to see this as being to our advantage.
Performers from all over the country are interested in discussing ways in which we can increase fees in some Tamworth venues - if you're one of them, please contact me.
We're not saying that it's gonna happen by Tamworth 2000 (I get exhausted thinking about it), but it won't happen if we don't start speaking in ways in which we can make it - let's face it, no-one else will do it for us.
Thankyou to every member in Tamworth for your support and encouragement, to the members that gave me posters to stick up at our stall, to you all for your generosity. Thankyou to the community broadcasters who support what we are trying to achieve and for continually giving us airtime to talk about it.
I reckon next year we'll further build our presence in Tamworth - but yeah, one woman on a yellow bicycle can't do it alone, so if you're interested in getting involved in the ongoing MEAA GOES COUNTRY campaign, contact me now on tel: 02 9333 0946, email: [email protected] fax: 02 9333 0933
by Peter Lewis
First, thanks for supporting Workers OnLine. You have been advocating the need for the union movement to embrace the new technology for some time. It finally appears to be happening. Do you feel vindicated?
No, in many ways we've missed the boat and we're now playing catch- up. During the Accord period, when we were operating in a friendly environment, we had an opportunity to embed ourselves in the emerging information revolution. Unfortunately, we were preoccupied with other strategies like amalgamations. In effect we were trying to sort out the consequences of the Industrial Age, rather than position ourselves for the Information Age.
Where does this leave the blue collar workers who have been the union movement's traditional constituency?
Nobody's talking about abandoning our blue-collar base. To the contrary, that base is changing as a consequence of the information revolution. One only has to look at the engineering sector to the see the impact of new technology on the nature of work. We are seeing everywhere a merging of traditional work and new technology. Production processes are being "infomated" (I hate the term), the consequences of this are contradictory. If information technology is applied without concern for human factors it can create very unhealthy workplaces with a diminution of skills. If the technology is applied with due regard to the needs of the workforce, it can be quite liberating, leading to more fulfilling work and new skills. Our blue collar base will always be important, but we cannot survive exclusively focussed on that base.
Let's look into the crystal ball 50 years. What will your average trade union look like?
I don't think there will be an average trade union. One of the consequences of the changes we are seeing is that trade unions will more and more resemble the characteristics of the new sectors of the economy. This means we will be more likely to see diverse trade union structures with a greater niche focus. Unions, like every structure within the information age need to be flexible and adaptive. I would like to see greater professionalisation of service delivery in the unions through dedicated and highly trained staff; in short, we need to look at a model of trade unionism that limits the role for internal politics to hamper member service delivery. Perhaps we should look at a corporatised model, where appointed trade union managers deliver services independent of the elected stream which would establish policy. Of course, we can't be prescriptive and the change has to be evolutionary.
What policy issues do unions need to confront in the short term?
In the short-term we need to stabilise membership. I believe retention to be as important as organising. On a simple cost-benefit basis it is cheaper to retain what you have than to go seeking new members. Organising is important, no doubt, but there's no point organising new areas if we can't deliver the sort of services that will keep people with the union. All of our surveys have shown that nearly half the union membership doesn't believe we communicate effectively. This is disturbing. That's why I've put so much emphasis on supporting the activities of TUTA in improving the skills of trade union management. A consolidation of TUTA both financially and strategically is the key short term strategy.
What about social policy, do unions have a role in promoting issues outside the traditional industrial agenda?
Absolutely. Unions cannot survive if they have a narrow industrial agenda. In any case many of these issues have become blurred. Take, for instance, work and family issues, with an increased need for two incomes to support family units a whole range of social issues come into play which weren't there in the past. Take childcare, stress -- even sex life according to our survey!
You've been secretary of Labor Council for just over six months, what have been the biggest challenges?
The biggest challenge has been to put together a team that reflects the diverse views in the labour movement to position the Labor Council as an open institution that has important ideas to contribute to national debates and specific state policies. We need to focus NSW unions on recruitment, organising and training as survival issues. And importantly, we need to manage the relationship between trade unions and a Labor Government which does not always have the same outlook as the unions.
One of the first things you've done is review a lot of the Council's assets. You've sold 2HD, you've progressed the development of Trade Hall and you're trying to secure the lease of Currawong. What's the motivation behind these reforms?
If there's a common theme it's to ensure that the Labor Council's resources are targeted to get the biggest bang for our buck in terms of the issues and strategies that are most important to us. In my mind, that's organising and service delivery. I have always been a reformer and believe you should always question the way you do things and never assume that there isn't a better way. For example, with Currawong, while it made a lot of sense for the union movement to provide low-cost holidays in the wake of the extension of annual leave, it doesn't make much sense at a time when we are struggling for resources to guarantee our survival.
So its a case of the union movement trading itself out of trouble?
That's a bit too managerial, I'd like to think of it as allocating our resources in the best way to support our current strategies. If a business kept performing the way we're performing, they'd soon have the receivers in. If we are going to use the business analogy, I see the union movement as re-engineering itself to meet the challenges of the next millennium.
The other issue you've been vocal on is the need to de-factionalise the Labor Council and the broader Party. What do you mean by this?
I'd draw a distinction between the Labor Council and the ALP. The Labor Council consists of many unions that are not affiliated to the ALP and have not been part of the traditional faction system. Those unions have always sought one thing from the Labor Council and that is support of their strategies. The process of defactionalising at Labor Council is in my view well on the way to completion. The new line-up of officers at Labor Council and the way the Council operates clearly indicate that. The Labor Party, unfortunately, has institutionalised factionalism, both in its rules and operation, which will make it more difficult to defactionalise. Factional systems in the Labor Party made sense when there were strong ideological divides. It was a sensible way of managing those divides. Since the end of the cold war it has become less relevant. I think this has been recognised by those who think across the traditional factions. The key challenge is to bring these people together to come up with alternate models which protect the rank and file's involvement in the Party, but also provide Party structures that keep policy relevant and produce good candidates.
More importantly, how can this be practically achieved?
First, by raising the issue and I'm pleased to see that many people are now doing this. Secondly, by being open to the change and showing in practise that you're prepared to operate in a non-factional manner. This is a very slow process and requires people to suspend their disbelief and a great deal of trust. This always takes time. What needs to be done, practically, is to convene a national conference of those key people from across the factional divide who are interested in the future of the Party to develop models and strategies for change. I would plan to do that later this year.
What would a de-factionalised labour movement look like?
It would be a labour movement that would be less concerned with who holds a particular position or view and more concerned about that person's competence. It would have party branches that had a life and a vitality that unfortunately the factional system has squeezed out of many branches today. I'd like to see a Party where every member of the party was there because they were committed to the Party rather than because they were asked to by a friend or sponsor.
How would policy be set?
Policy would be set in a dynamic manner. There always needs to be a process where the leadership can advance policy and the rank and file can have an input with the ability to modify if the policy is too out of kilter with their expectations. This requires a dynamic Party, a Party that is focussed on skilling its membership in policy issues. If the Party is not dynamic policy will always be old shibboleth confronting pragmatism.
So how would a power privatisation debate have been played out differently under this set up?
Under this sort of set-up, more time and more detailed discussions with all of the stakeholders would be required and, at the end of the day, there may be groups who can't agree with a particular policy and that would have to be accommodated.
On a broader level, how would the Party select candidates?
My preference would be for a system which had a mixture of rank and file and central involvement. The key thing is to ensure that competent people who will advance the interests of labour are the ones who will end up in Parliament. Rank and file involvement is needed as a guard against a loss of direction by the centre. By the same token the centre is often in a better position to understand the specific electoral requirements.
Can you understand the suspicion towards you from some on the Left given the policy positions you've taken in the past -- I'm thinking particularly of your book with Mark Duffy which advocated a move away from the central wage-fixing system?
You've got to understand the context of that book. Many of the ideas in it I wouldn't hold to today. We advocated a move away from a rigid centralised system for very good reasons. The system had become too centralised. The policies on amalgamation, for example, were policies being imposed on the union movement -- and many would now agree with us that they didn't provide all the benefits that were claimed at the time. My view is that there will always be a need for a social safety net, but that the form that safety net takes should be open to debate and discussion as should the nature of bargaining and wage-setting. The Labor Council has had a tradition since Michael Easson of encouraging ideas and discussion. It's something I don't apologise for, I think it's healthy. I do not believe that there is one strategy for all the trade union movement. Strategies evolve and ideas evolve as circumstances change. What we always need is the people who have the courage to advance new ideas and an environment that doesn't penalise them for doing so. The quickest way to stagnation is to try and suppress dissenting views. In terms of the 1991 book, there are many bits that I still believe stand the test of time, particularly our critique of the ACTU's directed approach to trade union development. Other bits of the books are no longer relevant.
Would you describe yourself as an economic rationalist?
No. I'm an economic realist. Fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous. It blinds one to the complexity of the world. This is particularly true in the social world which economics is a core competent of. Economics matters, but economics is undertaken within a social and political context. The best economists have always been good social scientists as well.
Another criticism coming from some on the Left is that it's only after you have used the factional system to claw your way to power that you have begun speaking of de-factionalisation ...
First, I reject the notion that I have clawed my way to power, I am probably the person in the best position to initiate the process because I understand how both factions work and whilst it's true that I have been identified with the Right, I have never been a traditional right-winger. On many issues, particularly social policy, my views would be regarded as more to the Left. On other issues like economic policy, I would be regarded as being in the centre. It's very difficult in the world we are in now to categorise people using traditional labels. Power and influence is only a tool and like any tool its only useful if it is used for the right task.
Why is now an appropriate time to pursue defactionalisation?
Because there is a general consensus that the factions are devoid of the ideologicial content which was the basis of their creation. The challenges facing the union movement, that is survival, is common to all no matter what traditional factional grouping they were originally aligned to. Factions are a luxury we can no longer afford. The ordinary members of unions wouldn't have a clue as to what faction their union was aligned to and more importantly, they wouldn't care less. What they are interested in is services that protect them and their families.
There's a lot of new theories about what Labor should be doing in the 21st century floating around. How do you rate the various policy prescriptions?
I welcome the debate, though sometimes I wonder who some of the ideas are directed at. Take the notion of a "Third Way". I have always believed the Labor Party was the third way. To me to talk about the Third Way is to misconceive the debate that's required. Policies have always evolved to meet changed circumstances, this is natural and should be seen as natural. To talk about the Third Way is to imply that there is a choice between fundamentally antagonistic approaches which require some sort of reconciliation. Nobody sensible believes in laissez-faire capitalism or extreme state intervention any longer. The real issue is to transcend that limited debate, not by developing a Third Way, but by prioritising what is acceptable to a civilised society in terms of things like the social safety net, economic growth and levels of inequality. Policy has always been about trade-offs and balance and it's becoming even more so as the ability governments at all levels to influence national economic development is constrained by the emerging information revolution and its globalisation. The InterNet is a classic example of technology which by and large will not be able to be regulated by one government acting alone. Lindsay Tanner's approach, that is his focus on the requirements to maintain an open Australia in all its manifestations, is closer to where I think the real debate should be.
Does that mean that the only thing we can aspire to as a labour movement is informed pragmatism?
The problem with your question is the word 'informed'. I would argue that people who don't support a social safety net and a sensible set of policies to ensure economic opportunity for all are uninformed. So that debate still remains in any society. As to pragmatism, I do believe we have to be pragmatic in the way we implement policies to ensure that they are relevant and evolving.
How will you gauge your success of your term as Labor Council secretary?
That's a difficult question. I would rather others judge my success. I personally don't view my position as an individual position. If the labour movement doesn't grow and re-invent itself in a way that maintains its relevance, it doesn't matter how successful or unsuccessful I have been. In other words, my role is inextricably linked to the challenges the union movement faces.
by Mark Hearn
Charles Mackay shakes his head. "What was illegitimate three weeks ago is now supposedly legitimate". Charles is understandably frustrated and bewildered.
A veteran of a long campaign to improve safety standards in the Cash-In-Transit (CIT) industry, Charles and his fellow Armaguard security guards fear three years' hard work may be about to be undone.
Armaguard, the most successful and respected of Australia's armoured car, cash delivery operators, has purchased ASAP Couriers, a company which a few years ago diversified into providing "soft skin" cash pick-up services - a covert, plain clothes courier, working alone from an unmarked car. A service apparently popular with some businesses - particularly fast-food outlets, which prefer a more discreet approach to the traditional armoured van with three uniformed and armed staff.
Charles would prefer that the soft skin operators discreetly disappeared from the industry. "These operators threaten our jobs - they are our direct competitors."
He sees a basic contradiction between a company offering a more costly service, and a high profile on safety, with a covert soft skin operation, where an individual works alone in a normal car. Indeed, Armaguard had previously expressed concerns over the emergence of soft skin operators in the industry; now, as Charles complains, "they've bought one of them".
The CIT industry comes with its own coded language, like the closely guarded secrets of safety procedures and cash movement, and the network of steel doors, cameras and one-way windows which confront the Armaguard visitor. No-one wants to say too much, and cut the bandits an advantage. Bandits who kill.
Armaguard workers are worried that their employer, chasing market share, may inadvertently offer the bad guys an exposed surface: their soft skin.
Since helping to organise an eight day strike by armoured guards, members of the Transport Workers Union, in 1995, Charles, a senior TWU delegate, has been pushing for the implementation of the recommendations of the NSW Government's Cash-In-Transit Inquiry.
The strike followed the fatal shooting of one armoured guard in a robbery, and the wounding of another guard a few days later. The subsequent inquiry produced a series of recommendations designed to clean up the industry and improve safety.
Charles says guards were determined to "get rid of the small operators" from the industry, and build a stronger safety regime - at least three staff per van, and four in "black spot" areas; the introduction of better communications systems - incredibly, guards did not have access to radios or phones before the strike.
Winning these basic protections was a condition of the return to work. The other safety gains have taken longer to achieve. Until recently, Charles believed that the hard work was starting to pay off.
The company claims the ASAP acquisition is "customer driven", and prompted by a need to expand and protect Armaguard's market share. Tom Steward, manager of one of Armaguard's Sydney operations, says the armoured car market is "saturated. The company needs to grow."
Increased competition has brought lower profit margins. Major US operator, Brinks, has come into the local market, breaking up the duopoly enjoyed by Armaguard and Brambles - and adding to the pressure already created by the emergence of the soft skin operators. Steward says the three-man crew arrangement is not under threat from the soft skins, nor are safety standards. "It's a different operation".
NSW TWU Secretary Tony Sheldon says most of the CIT inquiry's recommendations have been implemented by NSW Attorney-General Jeff Shaw. Industry operators can be fined and lose accreditation if they fail to observe safety codes, or pay award rates. Staff can now be vetted for criminal records. "Armaguard won't be able to run the soft skin operation on the cheap".
Charles Mackay is angry not only about the company's decision, but its impact on jobs. Armaguard failed to consult staff before taking the decision to purchase ASAP; Charles hopes that the company will be more up-front addressing employment and pay concerns.
Although Armaguard has around 500 staff, and only 28 soft skinners will join the company from ASAP, Charles fears they could have an influence far in excess of staff numbers. "ASAP is non-unionised", Charles says, "and their staff are paid $4 an hour less than us".
Charles says there's been constant pressure from the company to cut labour costs, by reducing crew numbers from two to three. "Now there will be pressure to reduce to one". Bill Reid, who has been with Armaguard ten years, says the ASAP acquisition "is the thin end of the wedge to get two man crews and cut pay."
He disputes Armaguard's claim that the takeover was customer-driven: "it was cost-driven." In his experience, Armaguard customers have no objection to uniformed staff: "they're very happy to have us. There is a feeling of safety." Bill believes the soft skin operators are more open to attack - "you don't need a sophisticated weapon to break into a car".
Yet the appeal of a cheaper service - $50 for an armoured car pick-up, $10 for a soft skin visit - may prove irresistible. Ian Sellick estimates that soft skin operations will take up to 20% of business away from the armoured cars.
Ian has been with the company seven years, and has already seen the steady erosion of permanent full-time work at Armaguard. The CIT industry has travelled well down the "casualisation" path. While a new Armaguard employee can spend as much as $1,200 in training and fees to enter the industry, he or she might only be offered as little as two days work. 50% of Armaguard staff are casuals.
Industry casualisation, and the breakdown of safety standards, takes many forms: as TWU delegate Glenn Nightingale observes, relatively large sums of cash can be easily carried in an envelope. "Heaps of couriers deliver money and don't know it". Very exposed soft skin.
Tony Sheldon says the TWU will take the same hard line on safety and jobs it took during the 1995 strike. "If Armaguard tries to cut jobs or safety standards, they will face the consequences of an industrial campaign. That's for certain."
Charles acknowledges the strong role played by the TWU during and after the dispute. "Tony Sheldon was very vocal and upfront during the strike, and was instrumental in getting the inquiry up and running". Charles understands that neither Armaguard staff nor the union could prevent the ASAP purchase: "but we want to control it". Marcus Schulz can understand Armaguard's need to protect its market share, yet "it's got to be made safer for all of us".
It's all about cash. How to move it safely from business to bank, how much profit can be made by offering the safest, quickest and most economical cash delivery service in a harshly competitive world. Cash drives a hard bargain. As Geln Nightingale observes, a $10 soft skin pic-up "is about the price of a pizza".
The price of safety, in life and limb, is a little higher, and can be found in your local workers compensation register. As reading, it's a bit harder to digest than your average pizza, and its grim allocations of cash in lieu of life and good health are only enforceable after the safety system has broken down.
Photo : TWU Secretary Tony Sheldon with Marcus Schulz: "It's got to be made safer for all of us".
* This article was first published in workSite, the organ of the Lloyd Ross Forum. For the on-line version of workSite, go to www.labor.net.au/worksite
by Professor Terry Irving
In his Labor in Print (1975), H.J. Gibbney listed 488 newspapers published by the labor movement in Australia between 1850 and 1939.
We are familiar with the idea that the press in democratic societies is 'the fourth estate', a vital forum in which the people can call their rulers to account.
This long history of the labor press also reminds us that, from time to time, popular movements have to set up their own press to counter the tendency for the established media to forget their democratic purpose.
In Australian history the first of those moments was in the 1840s, when trade unions began to make an impact on public life, linking up with radical organisations to agitate for land reform, public works for the unemployed, and an end to convict transportation. In that decade there were probably more newspapers published in Sydney (whose population exploded from 30,000 to 50,000) than in any other comparably sized city in the world.
We recall that The Sydney Morning Herald first came out in 1843, but forget that its elitist espousal of the interests of merchants and shopkeepers provoked a vigorous opposition press.
The Mutual Protection Association, which took up the issue of unemployment, published the Guardian in 1844. The titles of The Star and Workingman's Guardian, and The People's Advocate indicate their stance clearly enough.
In 1850 the most substantial of all Sydney's democratic papers appeared, The Empire, published by a radical tradesman from Birmingham, Henry Parkes.
By the late 1880s, the time had come for 'the second bite at political democracy' (as Manning Clark called it) and another bust of popular publishing. Henry Parkes was no longer the fiery radical, and 'the people' were excluded from parliament by plural voting, a gerrymandered distribution of seats, and the cost of electioneering.
Moreover, after a generation of rapid economic expansion it was time for 'social' democracy. Only a handful of skilled building workers had the eight hour day, there was no system of social security, taxation was optional for the rich, and working conditions were largely unregulated.
Worried by signs that the good times were coming to an end, working people embraced trade unionism and looked to the labor press for a lead. Perhaps half of the newspapers listed by Gibbney were published between 1890 and 1920.
Unions needed to listen to and organise their own members, so most of the larger unions had weekly or monthly papers. In particular, the miners, printers, seamen, railwaymen, ironworkers and engineers laid the foundations in this period of long-running and lively publications.
A different sort of paper emerged when labor supporters made the local rag a voice for the movement. As Gibbney's list reveals, there were many such 'labor communities' in the suburbs and country towns: the Carlton Advertiser and Trades Advocate; Westgate Weekly News; Barrier Daily Truth; Grenfell Vedette; Murray Independent; Queanbeyan Leader, and so on.
Politics, too, fertilised the labor press. Every political tendency in the movement felt that it could not exist without a periodical; indeed, producing and selling the paper was for some socialist groups their only sign of life. The Labor Party in New South Wales made a serious attempt at a newspaper between 1918 and 1924 with its Labor News, but subsequently the party contented itself with a more modest series of periodicals.
Most ambitious of all were the papers that sought to speak for the whole labor movement. The key here was to get agreement from a range of unions to underwrite and promote the paper. This was difficult, but the logic of belonging to a 'movement' demanded that it be done. Notable papers of this kind were Australian Workman (1890-1897), with New South Wales Trades and Labor Council involvement, and the Labor Daily (1922-1938), which was financed mainly by the Miners' Federation.
The factional position of the miners' union, however, meant inevitably that unions in the opposing faction would seek to promote a rival paper. This brings us to the best known of all labor papers, The Worker, published by the Australian Workers' Union.
Beginning in Wagga in 1892 as The Hummer, this paper promoted itself from 1905 as the 'official organ of the Trade Union and Labor Organisations'. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s the movement divided about whether to support the officially endorsed attempt by the AWU to set up a national chain of labor dailies. In the end, this factional warfare combined with mismanagement and commercial pressures killed the opportunity for a viable daily labor press.
Against this disappointment however must be set the achievement represented by many hundreds of labor publishing efforts. These attempts exemplified the resourcefulness, creativity and co-operative strength of the labor movement.
The pride that labor people felt in their press is wonderfully expressed in the 'Special Double Moving-In Number' of The Worker, published on September 2, 1905. Almost the whole front page was taken up with an engraving of the new three-storey Worker building at 129 Bathurst Street. Inside a photo-story revealed the technical and organisational advances in the building.
'Electrical communication between floors effects a great economy in time and saves much unnecessary stair climbing'. There were lavatories on each floor, and 'to the dismay of an unclean contemporary, there is a bath on the first floor'. But greatest pride was taken in the two linotype machines, 'the most wonderful invention of the last century'.
The movement was embracing the latest technology, and doing it in a labor way, as the writer made clear: 'These are the only linotypes in Australia which fulfil the real purpose of machinery in a well-ordered community. Every advantage they bring is reaped by the whole of the Worker readers.'
As the Labor Council embarks on its most recent publishing effort, using the latest form of communication, we too remember the 'real purposes' of publishing in the labor movement.
[Dr Terry Irving, President of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, was the editor of Labour History between 1990 and 1998. He is keen to hear from readers with an interest in the history of labor publishing. He can be reached at [email protected] ]
Dr Terry Irving,
home phone/fax: 61 2 9416 3179
'An intellectual is like a shipwrecked person
who learns to live "with" the land, not "on" it...'
(Edward Said)
by Peter Zangari
Arguably one of THE CDs to have in your collection, Internationalist,the third album by five piece band Powderfinger is an Australian masterpiece.
Most of the album was written in between extensive touring in 1996/97 and inspired by the challenges of life on the road in a country that had seen the election of a new conservative government.
These five guys out of Brisbane dont just write lyrics for lyrics sake. Their songs are full of powerful messages which in turn are matched by equally powerful music.
The choruses are catchy but not pretentious, the melodies are exquisitely sung by vocalist Bernard Fanning and the finished product has been well worth the wait.
There are a hell of a lot of political undertones in this album. Take for instance "The Day You Come". It was written about the rise of the Hanson phenomena (and I am not talking about some teeny bopper American pop group) in the past few years and its effect on the fair go Australian society we thought we lived in: "the system is collapsing, conscience is relapsing, the damage has been done".
With a haunting chorus that grows on you, this track has to go down as one of last year's greatest singles.
But let's move on, the reason why Powderfinger is so digestable to the ear is that the subject matter of the album is so Australian.
There's an ode to our favourite current affairs presenter in the song " Good Day Ray" : because we love you and we respect you. There is also a tribute to the 1990's aussie work ethic in the sweet sounding "Already Gone".
The opening line basically sums up the new world of work"you've been working all your life, all weekends and overtime-while you're trying to unwind you can't relate to the leisured life".
Sweeping aside the sarcasm, Internationalist is an album that rocks from start to finish. You will be caught up by the fuzzed guitars, the solid drumming and by Fanning's vocal style.
If they play a live venue near you make sure you catch them or else you'll probably have to wait a long time to see them again. Like any other great band that Australia has exported, they'll go where the money is and Powderfinger deserve the success they've waited so long for
by Peter Lewis
He had just spent a fortnight playing some pretty deft politics, which had almost succeeded in wiping IR as an election issue.
First, he had orchestrated a clever meeting between Peter Reith and the State Liberal where Reith was to ask Chikka to hand over the NSW system to the feds a la Kennett. She was then to rebuff Reithy's advances in a victory for the integrity of the NSW system.
A fully fledged handover had never been on anyone's agenda, employers are happy in the state system and NSW covers more than 60 per cent of the state's workforce -- compared to the small number of workers left in Victoria when Kennett put it to the sword.
But the charade had the desired effect, allowing the State Libs to give the impression that the "status quo" would prevail in NSW. Of course, the real game was always to bring in laws mirroring Reith's Workplace Relations Act, as had occurred under a Queensland Coalition Government. This became a technicality which would have got lost in the "no-handover" rhetoric had George Souris not taken his position at the crease.
Hartcher kept up to smart work with an interview on ABC's Broken Hill station a few days later. The way he was hosing down his policy could have made him eligible for membership of the FBEU.
Here's some extracts:
- "we want a policy that's good for New South Wales and which comes from New South Wales.
- "the state system works fairly well, it has the support of most employers and has the support of the labour movement, and by and large, it's delivered good results for the people of NSW."
- "we can work well I think with the Labor Council and the labour movement in this state.
All of which would have left Hartcher, feeling pretty comfortable and relaxed, ready to keep his intention focussed on his own seat of Gosford, where former Hawke minister Barry Cohen is proving more than nuisance value.
That peace was shattered Thursday, when George Souris addressed a business breakfast in Grafton and unilaterally announced an industrial relations policy with all the trappings of the hardline Court, Kennett and Reith agenda.
The policy reads like a hit-list from the uglies' Top 40: restricting access to unfair dismissal, promoting individual contracts, secret ballots before strike action, restriction on political donations and a shift from the IRC to civil courts for industrial disputes.
But unlike his more successful colleagues, Souris did not even try to dress the policy up as one about "fairness" and the "right to chose not to belong to a union". For George, it was much more simple. "It is time to reform industrial relations in favour of the employer".
If Hartcher had been in the audience he would have choked on his cornflakes. As it was, he had no idea his crafty work was being undone. Journalists who contacted Hartcher later that day say he had no idea of the substance of the Nats policy, notwithstanding that it is the same document they took to the 1995 election.
But later that day, the Nats' wish list became official Coalition policy when Kerry Chikarovski fronted a press conference at Parliament House. Questioned by the gallery on Souris' comments, she faced the choice of backing Hartcher and creating another policy split in the Coalition or dumping her key strategist and backing in Souris. Feeling the heat, she opted for the latter in the interests of damage control.
That decision saved a negative headline on the TV news that night, but leaves the Coalition exposed to a vigorous marginal seat campaign by the labour movement on the issue closest to workers' hearts. Where Hartcher was trying to take away workers' rights by stealth, the Souris-Chikarovski team has ensured that the uglies agenda is out there in the spotlight.
NSW workers who have watched the change in industrial climate federally since the Howard government came to power, may be less than enthusiastic in backing a government who wants to "reform industrial relations in favour of the employer". Then again, at least they now know what they'll be voting for.
Workers OnLine will be tracking the state election campaign up to March 27. For titbits from the hustings email us at [email protected]
by Stephen Long
The words of this great American oral historian still resonate today, but the Monday through Friday reference dates them. Much has changed in the quarter century or so since Terkel's classic book Working documented, in their own words, the daily lives of more than 130 people from all manner of occupations. But perhaps nothing more so than working time.
The transformation of working time stands alongside the rise of the global economy and the IT revolution as one of the hallmarks of our age. It separates the generations, placing a gap between the experience of those who worked full-time in one career and their children, who confront a world where job opportunities are increasingly casual, contingent and short-term. A world where, writes the sociologist Richard Sennett, a young American with at least two years of college can expect to change jobs at least 11 times in the course of working, and change his or her skills-base at least three times ... It is the time dimension of the new capitalism, rather than hi-tech data transmission, global stock markets or free trade, that most directly affects people's emotional lives.
There are multiple dimensions to the way contemporary capitalism is re-organising time, and working time especially. Sennett argues that the linear narratives that give meaning to peoples' lives are collapsing as the vertical march through the corridors of one or two institutions towards retirement is replaced by constant change. Common standards of time for work and leisure are withering as society adapts to the needs of the 24-hour economy and demands for labour flexibility. Little more than a third of the workforce now put in a standard week of 30-44 hours performed in daytime in Australia, while equal proportions work part-time or in excess of standard hours. Workaholism is becoming compulsory for many Australians, while hundreds of thousands of others languish without work or churn between casual jobs and unemployment. According to research by economists Yvonne Dunlop and Peter Sheehan, the total number of people working standard hours grew by just 3.5 per cent between 1978 and 1995, while the number working 45-48 hours a week increased by 80 per cent, the mumber working 49-59 hours by 142 per cent and the number working 60 hours or more rose by a massive by 206 per cent.
Even the nature of time itself is being transformed as technologies render communication instantaneous, creating what the sociologist Manuel Castells calls timeless time. The possibilities opened up by this change are amazing. It has freed many people from the tyranny of distance and given the fortunate more autonomy and control over when, where and how they work. Some physicists even believe that information can now travel faster than the speed of life, making time travel at least theoretically possible. But timeless time has also made the world a more volatile and scary place. Split-second financial transactions plunge and surge the value of currencies, decimating national economies. Real time monitoring of workers via remote computers has created new forms of labour oppression. Sue Fernie of the London School of Economics says the use of information technology to monitor workers in call centres has realised Jeremy Bentham's 200-year-old vision of the perfect prison, the Panopticon, used by French philosopher Michel Foucault as a metaphor for the future workplace. In the workplace/prison, power is invisible and unverifiable, and workers are seen but unseeing, the object of information never the subject of communication, alone, perfectly individualised and constantly visible.
The most obvious consequence of the re-organisation of working time has been a massive rise in insecurity. People feel a sense of anxiety in a world where jobs lack tenure and management has abdicated responsibility for providing ongoing employment. At the centre of the new economic system ... is the rotating worker write Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson in their book The Age of Insecurity, forever in danger of being revolved out into the market to be replaced by cheaper labour from outside. The internal market, the process whereby employees live in a state of constant competition against each other and against external contractors, is the final development in the transformation fo work from a sort of quasi-tenancy from which the employee could be evicted only on payment of redundancy money into a fleeting, transitory experience, infused with terror at the prospect of it ending, akin to a teenage love affair.
The lasting and damaging consequence of the change may be an erosion of morality. A booming trade in self-help books advises people that selfishness is the way to survive in the new world of work. In a world where employers no longer offer job security, William Bridges counsels people to create You & Co. or Me Inc.. Professor John Kotter of the Harvard Business School counsels the young to work on the outside rather than the inside of organisations and says institutional loyalty is a trap. Trust, loyalty and mutual commitment are being eaten away, Sennett argues in his new book The Corrosion of Character: the personal consequences of work under the new capitalism, in a world where the dominant ethos is "no long term'. The breakdown in trust and loyalty works both ways. While managements' demand that the workforce be flexibile and dispensible to suit their needs, most have not yet come to grips with the fact that it is also breeding a more flexible and dispensable attitude from employees towards employees, argues Sally Zanetic. Put self-interest first because your future lies in transforming yourself into a product to be marketed is the pervasive message. Everyone must be an entrepreneur. In a sense, it is the ultimate triumph of capitalism.
But at what cost? Can the values of rampant individualism be confined to work relationships? Transposed to the family realm, Sennett argues, "no long term' means keep moving, don't commit yourself and don't sacrifice...This conflict between family and work poses some questions about adult experience itself. How can long-term purpose be pursued in a short-term society? How can durable social relations be sustained? How can a human being develop a narrative of identity and life history in a society composed of episodes and fragments?
Ordinary people worry deeply about these questions. The consequences of the transformation of working time impact deeply on people in their daily lives. During a career spanning 13 years in journalism, the articles I have written on working time issues have drawn more feedback than any others. Last year, I wrote in my weekly column that one of the biggest issues confronting society was the divide between the overworked, the underworked and the out of work. This issue rarely makes the news pages because its army of victims lacks a collective voice, I wrote. But it is the source of a host of problems, from the deriorating balance between work and family life to the rising inequality that threatens social cohesion. Many people responded by email. Their stories were moving.
Wrote one woman: My husband is 51. He has been unemployed for over four years. My daughter is one of those who are often called to work (unpaid) during weekends and public holidays. About two years ago, she was sent to Singapore to fix a problem for a client. There she spent the entire Easter holiday trying to solve the problem, even to the extent of a stretch of more than 24 hours. In fact, from Good Friday to Easter Sunday. Last Sunday she was sent to NZ. Before she left, she had to spend Saturday studying relevant materials. No wonder she is often stressed. She used to be a happy and cheerful child. Not any more. Her medical bill last year exceeded $1,000.
Is the damage that Hurricane Mitch brought to Central America more severe than the current trend of overworked, underworked and out of work? I wonder. The differences, perhaps, are that one is a natural disaster and the other is human made, and one is fast and swift while the other is slow and chronic.
The union movement is right to campaign around the issues of working time. Let's hope it can make some small difference.
Further reading: Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Character: the personal consequenes of work under the new capitalism (Norton: 1998).
Manuel Castells, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture (Volumes 1-3) (Blackwell: 1998).
ACIRRT, Australia at Work: Just Managing (Prentice Hall: 1998).
Dan Elliott and Larry Atkinson, The Age of Insecurity (Verso: 1998).
STEPHEN LONG is work relations editor at The Australian Financial Review, and has been a specialist writer on work, industrial relations and equity issues for seven years. His writes a weekly column on working life issue, Work Relations, which appears each Wednesday in the Financial Review.
by Peter Lewis
The recent selection of Steve Bore as Australian captain, ahead of the imaginative and incisive presence of reforming smoker and gambler Shane Warne, is the latest in a long line of decisions which detract from the game?s enjoyment. Perhaps it?s their natural conservatism, we all remember how dourly Captain Cranky led his country, but whenever there is a choice between excitement and boring safety, the selectors opt for the latter.
For mine, the height of this close-minded policy came with the banishing of Michael Slater to the cricketing wilderness for 18 long months. Not only did they deflate one of cricket's most joyous spirits, they robbed us, the cricketing public, of the excitement of some of the best years of Slats' career. Instead we forced to watch the likes of Hayden and Elliot prod around with an out of sorts Taylor, a trio of dour lefties.
There have been other examples of the selectors' incompetence: ignoring Stewart Law while the nation called out for a solid number three to replace Boonie; mismanaging Michael Kasporwicz until he has become a perennial bench-warmer, convincing themselves Michael Bevan is an all-rounder; and selecting Damien Martyn for anything. And these decisions are made with no consultation and no accountability.
I believe its time for some direct democracy. In short, the Australian cricket public should replace the stodge-merchants who are the current selection panel. It would be easy. Simply open it up to public election, with votes to be delivered by phoning a 0055 number.
Think about it. Anyone prepared to part with 75 cents could be able to caste a vote in an election that actually meant something. If you were passionate enough, you could keep ringing in, to give greater weight to your cause. Likewise, a fringe Test player, could rack up a big phone bill against future earnings in order to force their way into the team. Because it is the fans voting, there would be a natural push towards a quality XI - who would really want to watch Lehmann failing week in week out.
But at the same time the system would raise the tantalising possibility of average punters like you and me making a run for office, going out to the people and convincing them of our worthiness to wear the baggy green. We're talking public advertisements where we could outline our background and talk of our ambition to take a screamer at third slip. And I won?t hear any talk of devaluing the baggy green. Who would be more deserving than the fans that have spent their lives dreaming of playing one game for Australia?
At a time when there is growing disenchantment with the management of the game in Australia, boredom at the formulaic nature of one-day games and the only real interest in umpires no-balling alleged chuckers, I would argue that the time is right for direct election.
Elections would give the power back to the Australian cricket public and take it away from the elites in the ACB and Channel Nine boxes. We would choose whom we spend our long summer days on the couch watching, rather than having a bunch of stodge-merchants imposed on us from on high.
by Naomi Steer, Labor Council senior executive officer
From Latham's "Third Way" to Saul's musings on the failure of the technocracy, the potential to rebuild a collective spirit in the post-Cold War era is linked to the ability to create new ways of acting co-operatively at a grassroots level.
Groups representing sectional interests need to broaden their focus, connecting with other like-minded advocates to present policy proposals that compliment each other and hang together in some sort of coherent manner.
In the absence of a unifying political philosophy, a coherent set of policies promoting social justice and communal ties can only evolve by reaching out to as many allies as possible.
The Labor Council is playing a part pin turning this theory into a reality, through its involvement on the NSW Alliance.
The Alliance is a group of peak councils, community organisations and public interest groups who come together on a regular basis to discuss issues of common concern.
The organisations who make up the Alliance are:
- the NSW Council of Social Services
- The Australian Conservation Foundation, Labor Council
- the Evatt Foundation
- the Youth Action Policy Association
- the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW
- the Ethnic Community Council
- the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations
- the Women's Electoral Lobby
- and People with Disabilities.
Other organisations such as the Public Interest Advocacy Center and the Australian Business Chamber have also been involved on particular issues.
Formed in 1996 the original focus of the Alliance was to act as a bridge between the community and government.
The A Forward Agenda for NSW forum held in March 1996 and opened by NSW Premier Bob Carr at the NSW Parliament House , was the beginning of a regular series of dialogues between Alliance members and government. The Alliance sought greater participation in government decision making, policy development and implementation. It envisaged regular dialogue with government on the key issues of the day.
Since its formation Alliance members have met with both sides of NSW government on a yearly basis and received a positive response to ongoing contact.
A major concern for the Alliance has been the provision of services to the community sector. Paralleled to this concern has been state revenue raising and, in particular, State-Commonwealth funding arrangements. Last year representatives of the Alliance met with NSW Premier Bob Carr and Treasurer Michael Egan to discuss this issue.
Many of the issues taken up by the Alliance reflect the common concerns of the participating organisations such as bank closures, community service cutbacks, employment and working hours.
The Alliance has provided a wonderful networking opportunity for the organisations involved.
As envisaged when it was first formed the Alliance has encouraged inter-organisation cooperation. Alliance members actively supported the ACTU's living wage campaign by disseminating information to their constituents and making submission to the Industrial Relations Commission..
NSW Director of NCOSS, Gary Moore believes that the links fostered by the Alliance have proved invaluable to his organisation. "The Alliance is a great forum to promote co-operation in the community on key issues facing low income people in NSW.".
Given the diverse nature of the Alliance's members agreement isn't always possible. For example unions and environmental groups have different positions over the forestry policy. Yet there are enough issues in common outside this area to make ongoing participation worthwhile.
John Connor of the Nature Conservation Foundation of NSW says "the things that bind us are in part the agenda of various interests to downgrade government and industry regulation. The Alliance therefore is an important watchdog across a whole range of government responsibilities."
The Alliance plans to develop its role as a facilitator of public education and debate on public policy issues. As such it plans to initiate in 1999 a series of public forums on topics such as the future of work, and sustainable growth.
For the union movement the Alliance has proved an invaluable link to the community. Our involvement reflects our commitment to improving the lives of workers beyond the boundaries of the workplace.
The gratuitous put-downs and back-handers by the tabloids have always been the media baron's stock in trade. But with Col Allan, Piers Akerman and Cookie, the Telegraph's one-eyed (literally!) leader-writer at the helm, it is now as easy to get a decent run as it is to get a freeze on the executive pay-rises that fuel the once-workers paper's editorial policy.
The anti-union fervour peaked during the waterfront dispute, where the Telegraph actively campaigned in favour of Patricks, sending a reporter in "undercover" to train as a scab, setting up a police officer who had the temerity to bowl a cricket ball at a Telegraph reporter WHO WAS BATTING and taking media exploitation of children to a new level. We would have loved the sort of access the corporate spin-doctors had to the presses when things got hot -- but Col never returned our calls!.
So this is our response. Why Piers-Watch? Piers Akerman has not only been given acres of newsprint to expand on his mean-spirited attitude to life, he is the voice in the ear of Col every morning in news conference, when he cooks up his nasty plans. Col's not a bad bloke, he should take pride in being the only newspaper editor in the country to editorialise for Paul Keating before the 96 election. But he's been poisoned by bad company The other thing is this. Piers will eventually rise to the bait, so any attacks he directs Workers Only way will only add to our profile.
The big challenge is to write a Piers-Watch column without attracting a test case on on-line defamation. One rule will be to limit ourselves to criticising the content of Piers' diatribes, rather than being tempted into the sort of personal attacks that a better-resourced publication would be duty bound to launch.
What we'll do is pick out a bit of Piers' magic every week and place it under the microscope. It could be a simple piece of proposal prejudice, like his recent effort on the Maree Man: "Hooray for the Marree Man!," he wrote. "Long may he stand undefiled on his remote South Australia plateau! As a wonderful reminder of traditional Aborigines he has done more to raise the profile of Aboriginal history, here and around the world, than any acreage of dizzying dot paintings exhibited locally or sent abroad by our arts czars.".("A Tribute Etched Into the Landscape, 21/1/99)
On other occasions we may go deeper and analyse the underlying attitudes which inform his mean world view. We don't need to limit ourselves to Piers either. If PP McGuinness, Miranda Divine, Paul Sheehan or Cookie, himself, come up with something special there's no reason to let it pass unnoticed. . Contributions will be welcome as, to be honest, I find to it difficult to get through Piers' work. We'll seek out all those who feel the wrath of the Tele sledge-hammer, who are given the dunce cap or the crooked crown.
First up though, we have a ripper from Piers, himself. It involved a "leaked" list of businesses who had not paid their garbage bills to the Sydney City Council. Somehow Piers interpreted this as a list of Frank Sartor's personal debts. Extracts from the story, Sartor's subsequent release and Piers' 'apology' follow.
***************************************
CITY'S NAPOLEON MEETS WATERLOO (Daily Telegraph 7/1/99)
"Cranky Franky Sartor, our Littlest Lord Mayor, has a real problem with leaks.
"But who was he planning to install on Observatory Hill and at what price to the ratepayers of Sydney who are already paying a huge price for his council's approval of the monstrosity on East Circular Quay; the unwanted city pool and the trashing of the city's streetscapes?
"Now his Napoleonic ambition to seize the heights of Observatory Hill has been revealed it can also be disclosed that details of some of the Town hall expenditures for the last half year have also been dribbling from Mr Sartor's George St bastion.
"The picture painted by the extensive accounts is not a pretty one.
"Taxpayers have been footing bills presented by cafes, pubs and restaurants, dress shops, child care centres, fishing tackle shops and sports centres and more, lots more.
"Payments to the American Spanish Club and Alliance Francaise reflect, no doubt, Mr Sartor's attempts to foster friends in the multicultural community, but who was responsible for the Arthur Murray School of Dancing account?
"The report lists the office of just one division of the Sydney City Council for the six-month period. The total comes a little less than $426,000."
Then follows an expose about how the "information" got out and a rant about telephone hoardings. The prose is lyric, the substance minimal. The piece concludes with a call for an inquiry into the spending by Sartor.
But Piers' tone was a bit more subdued when this little piece appeared in his next column:
"Mea culpa, Lord Mayor Frank Sartor, Mea Culpa. Last Thursday I wrote that Sydney Town Hall expenditure for the past six months included payments to cafes, restaurants and pubs and even the Arthur Murray Dancing School.
"The list came from a floppy disc sent to me by a Town Hall employee. It was checked by an accountant but it was however not a list of Town Hall expenditures as declared.
"It was in fact a schedule of payments due for the city's garbage collection services. I have since spoken to and personally apologised to Mr Sartor and deeply regret this unfortunate error."
***************************************
What Piers didn't respond to was Frank Sartor's colourful release, issued the day the original article was published. It's so good, we reproduce in full:
LORD MAYOR DEMANDS SACKING OF AKERMAN
Lord Mayor of Sydney Frank Sartor today called on News Limited and the senior editorial management of the Daily Telegraph to sack columnist Piers Akerman for what he described as "the worst example of journalistic inaccuracy" he had ever seen.
The Lord Mayor said even the Daily Telegraph's most junior reporter would not have made such a fundamental error as Akerman has made in his column today.
"Piers Akerman obviously does not understand simple accounting terms, and worse still doesn't bother to check the facts either,:" the Lord Mayor said.
"Quite clearly the document was a list of debtors -- businesses which owed the City money for trade waste collection.
"What Akerman has tried to present as restaurant bills, shopping expenses and dancing lesson fees are the outstanding amounts those companies owe the City for the collection of their garbage bins, the Lord Mayor said.
"At no stage did Akerman check with my office or the Office of the General Manager to confirm the nature of the documents he had been leaked.
"But even a high school economics student could have recognised the documents for what they were," Lord Mayor Sartor said
The Lord Mayor said Akerman compounded this fundamental error by using it as the basis for a defamatory article which set a new low for journalism.
"If the senior management of the Daily Telegraph and News Limited have any concern for the integrity of their publications, today's column by Piers Akerman will be his last.
"The City of Sydney applies the highest standards of probity to its finances and this was confirmed
with the clean bill of health delivered by the NSW Auditor-General late last year," the Lord Mayor said.
"I would be happy for Akerman to visit the office of the Auditor-General for a lesson in simple accounting," Lord Mayor Sartor said.
******************************************
Thank goodness News Ltd declined Frank Sartor's invitation. Accordingly, let the Piers-Watching begin.
© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW URL: http://workers.labor.net.au/1/print_index.htmlLast Modified: 15 Nov 2005 [ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ] LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW |