The nationwide poll of 1,100 people, commissioned by the Labor Council of NSW shows a firm trend in positive attitudes towards trade unions. It was carried out earlier this month by Sydney University's Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training and follows similar surveys in 1996, 1997 and 1999.
It found that:
- a majority - 52 per cent - of people agree with the proposition that "I'd rather be in a union" (up from 44 per cent two years ago)
- only 14 per cent of Australians now agree that "Australia would be better off without unions" (down from 23 per cent in 1999)
- and 56 per cent of respondents agreed that "management has more power than unions" (up from 53 per cent two years ago)
Labor Council secretary John Robertson said the survey lays down the gauntlet to the Howard Government as it prepares to attack the trade union movement to gain political mileage.
"This survey challenges the popular wisdom - pushed by the likes of John Howard and Tony Abbott - that trade unions are on the nose," Labor Council secretary John Robertson said.
"This survey indicates that - given a freedom to choose - most workers would be in unions. This begs the question - what is the Howard Government doing to help them exercise their freedom of choice.
"I am aware of numerous examples of workers being actively discouraged from joining a union, discriminated against and even intimidated.
"There are many employers pushing the line that to be a union members is to be disloyal to the company. In the worst cases, workers who join trade unions have their hours cut and career prospects diminished. We will be bringing examples of these cases to light in coming weeks.
"Often these policies are being implemented with the active support of the Howard Government's employment advocate - which after five years is still to launch a prosecution for victimization on behalf of a trade union member.
"While the Howard Government tries to cash in on stereotypes of violent building workers it is turning a blind eye to the more subtle violence being perpetrated day in and day out on ordinary workers."
In 1995 Quentin Cook received the backing of then shadow IR minister Howard, when he made a tilt at the leadership of the CEPU's - Postal Division.
That bid failed miserably, but Cook has since established the Postal Delivery Officers Union - an unregistered organization that purports to represent postal workers in competition with the CEPU.
While only attracting a handful of members, the PDOU represented a postal worker sacked for trying to strangle another worker.
On the PDOU's advice the worker refused to cooperate with two internal inquiries conducted by Australia Post and refusing to accept a transfer to another centre.
When the matter came before Commissioner Bob Redmond in the AIRC, he let fly at the PDOU.
It was, he said "an unregistered union, had little knowledge of the industrial relations system and failed to give [the worker] the correct advice, on the evidence before me".
CEPU state secretary Jim Metcher says that "the only hope for PDOU members facing disciplinary action is that management will protect them from Quentin Cook".
The comments are the latest blow for the PDOU, which last year was denied registration by the AIRC for failure to follow its own rules.
Named the 'Big Other', the FNV put five actors in a glass house in a public place for two days. The actors represented people from different countries struggling with issues like globalisation, child labour, workers rights, and so on.
The audience was invited not to vote on the players, but on the products they had in their house, such as Nike shoes -- but also products that are made in a somewhat more ethical manner (i.e., not using slave labour).
They also placed the different products on the web and ask participants to vote online. The resulting site is Labourstart's website of the week and definitely worth a look - despite being in Dutch: http://194.109.206.218/bigother/
Given that the Big Brother juggernaut is likely to keep rolling on in Australia - and has clearly capture the imagination of a key target demographic - the twenty-somethings - maybe it's something we should be emulating here.
We're interested in hearing from anyone with a creative idea of cashing in on the reality TV show in the coming months.
Despite continual vows from the Minister for Industrial Relations that injured workers would not be worse off, insurance firm QBE is telling injured workers that they should be re-considering their position in light of the changes.
QBE tells the worker to consider a commutation - effectively cashing in all future entitlements for a significantly smaller lump-sum payment.
The letter also raises concerns that the legislation, despite commitment to the contrary, will operate retrospectively.
The CFMEU, whose member received the letter, has accused QBE of "scare-mongering and a deliberate attempt to play on the fears of the public surrounding the recent amendments".
"It is hard to see an innocent explanation, particularly in light of the fact that the author of the letter is a solicitor," the CFMEU's Andrew Ferguson says.
The union is concerned insurers are sending similar letters out to workers without the benefit of trade union and legal representation.
And Ferguson says the insurers' scare tactics underline the need for a strong independent arbitrator such as the Compensation Court to scrutinise all pay-outs of benefits.
Specifically, the CFMEU has called on WorkCover to issue a written direction to all insurers that:
- such correspondence should not be sent to claimants or their lawyers
- that is insurers are going to refer to the new legislation they should set out in detail the effect of the changes on the relevant claim
- if a claimant is not legally represented, the correspondence should advise the claimant to seek legal advice.
- and that QBE should be required to send a letter of apology to all injured workers who received similar letters.
Common Law Inquiry
Meanwhile, Labor Council representatives will present oral submissions to the Sheahan Inquiry into workers compensation common law next Thursday.
Inquiry organisers have undertaken to have transcript of these submission posted on the official inquiry website within 24 hours.
The site is at: http://www.sheahan.inquiry.nsw.gov.au
The statistics, in a report to the Occupational Health and Safety and Workers Compensation Advisory Council, gives details of just 14 prosecutions for the year to June 2000.
This compares with 674 prosecutions - 96 per cent of which were successful - in the previous 12 month period.
Labor Council secretary John Robertson has called on the Minister to explain the anomaly, warning that without strong penalties there is little incentive for employers to provide safe workplaces.
"The Occupational Health and Safety Act imposes strong obligations on employers - but we need an activist government authority to ensure those that breach the law are brought to account. The onus rests with the Minister to show that the law is, in fact, being upheld."
Unions are also concerned that scores of prosecutions are lapsing because WorkCover has failed to file actions with in the two-year statutory time period.
Spin Treatment
Further clouding the issue, WorkCover later issued a media release admitting there prosecutions had decreased by one third over the past three years.
WorkCover stated there had been 444 occupational health in the 12 months to June 2001. But it has still failed to clarify the position in respect to 1999-2000.
WorkCover says these figures are down on previous years because of "a fall in the number of workplace injuries".
These accident figures could not be scrutinised by the trade union movement because they are not publicly available
Soft Fine for Teenage Life
Meanwhile, the CFMEU has expressed its outrage at the fine imposed on employer over the death of a 17-year-old apprentice.
The employer was last month fined just $20,000 over the death of 17-year-old Dean McGoldrick, who fell to his death non a Sydney building site.
The CFMEU has asked NSW industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca for an explanation for the leniency of the penalty.
The announcement - scheduled to take place today at the Telstra Line Depot in Murwillumbah - rules out any further sale of Telstra in a major win for workers' job security.
But on Tuesday, Telstra directed all employees who work out of the line depot to not come to the depot during the period that Beazley was scheduled to be there.
The union complained to Telstra, the local media and the shadow ministers office and management withdrew the direction two days later.
"It remains to be seen if any worker who attends is targeted in future," the CEPU's Mark Brownlow.
About the Pledge
The Telstra pledge commits Labor to keeping Telstra for all Australians.
It states:
"Kim Beazley and Labor pledge to the people of Australia that, if elected, Telstra will remain in majority public ownership.
"Labor believes that by keeping Telstra in majority public hands, services for all Australians will be maintained and improved.
"Commonsense tells you that a fully privatised Telstra will focus on profits not people and that services will suffer.
"Let's stop John Howard's Telstra flog-off"
Members Equity is a joint venture involving financial giant AXA and 41 industry super funds.
It is to be headed by former reserve Bank chief Bernie Fraser and currently underwrites more than $5 billion in home loans.
Fraser says the new bank will compete with the Big Four and encourage workers to move across by offering low-fee basic service accounts. It will keep costs down by focussing on telephone and internet banking.
Labor Council's superannuation guru Mark Lennon says the development is good news for a competitive banking industry.
"This is a follow on from super union home loan products which have done well and I'm sure this venture has a good chance of success," Lennon says.
More on the Banking Issue next week
A five-member full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission this week agreed to hear the case over two weeks in November, rejecting Government and employer submissions to hear it on an award-by-award basis.
ACTU Assistant Secretary Richard Marles welcomed the decision, saying the epidemic of excessive working hours and unpaid overtime affecting Australian employees deserved a top-level inquiry.
"Now all the procedural roadblocks are out of the way, we can present a compelling case to plug the hole in the award system which is allowing people to be forced to work virtually unlimited hours," said Mr Marles.
"The pressure to work longer, less predictable and often unpaid extra hours is stretching working families to the limit. Extreme hours degrade the lives of workers and their families, and are bad for productivity, staff morale and workplace safety.
"As a community, we need to deal with problems of overwork in a comprehensive way. This hearing is a crucial step forward," said Mr Marles.
The ACTU's claim seeks to establish flexible guidelines on excessive hours of work and unhealthy roster patterns, considering factors such as an employee's workload over an extended period, health and safety and family and community responsibilities.
The guidelines would be tailored to suit the requirements of individual industries, without imposing a maximum cap on working time.
Recent studies show that up to one-third of Australian employees are working more than 50 hours a week, giving Australia the second-longest working hours in the OECD, trailing only the United States.
EXCESSIVE WORKING HOURS IN AUSTRALIA
� Australia has the second longest working hours in the OECD, with more than one-quarter of the workforce working more than 50 hours per week (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997).
� Only 36.5% of the workforce work a standard week and this figure is on the decline (Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, 1997.)
� Numerous studies have demonstrated the adverse health and safety effects of working more than 48 hours per week.
� More than 20% of Australian employees work unpaid overtime (ABS 2000).
� Since 1966 the number of part-timers has risen as a percentage of the workforce from 10% to 24.8% (ABS).
� The European Union has agreed to limit average weekly working hours to 48, while France is cutting the limit to 35.
� Some 25% of Australian employees work hours which be illegal in Europe.
THE ACTU'S REASONABLE HOURS TEST CASE
� On 14 May 2001, the ACTU lodged an application with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for a test case to include reasonable hours of work as an Award condition for Australian employees.
� It is the first hours case of such general significance since the 1947 Standard Hours Inquiry by the then Conciliation and Arbitration Court which set the eight hour day.
� The application proposes a flexible Reasonable Hours Clause for inclusion in 14 Test Case Awards operating across a wide range of industries. The effect of the clause can be tailored to suit the circumstances of individual businesses.
� The proposed clause does not propose a numerical limit on hours worked.
� The application seeks to establish flexible guidelines on excessive hours of work and unhealthy roster patterns by considering an employee's safety, family responsibilities, workload and the number of hours worked over an extended period.
� The proposed clause provides for additional days of annual leave for employees who work a large number of hours over an extended period.
by Lisa Jooste
Two-hour snap strikes were undertaken by stores staff at St John's Subiaco and Murdoch sites on Wednesday - followed by sit-ins on Thursday and more stoppages Friday.
LHMU National President and WA Secretary, Helen Creed, says union members are committed to an active campaign, to achieving a fair pay rise.
" The private health sector in Australia is booming and profits are high," said Helen.
"St John of God are spending big on capital works while our members struggle to make ends meet."
At a stopwork meeting last week, the 500 LHMU members including Caregivers, Enrolled Nurses, Orderlies, Catering Workers, CSSD Assistants, Cleaners, Ground Staff, Laundry Workers, Store Workers and Security, resolved to take the action.
Delegates lead the way
St John of God delegates are leading the way in the campaign for a fair wage increase.
Here's what one delegate, Merlene Cotter, had to say at the stopwork meeting last Friday:
" We follow five of St John of God Hospital's values: Justice, Compassion, Respect, Excellence and Hospitality.
" It's a great pity we cannot get management to follow the same values in their attitude towards us.
" We don't spend enough time with our families. We don't earn enough to spend on our families," Merlene Cotter said.
"Management walk out the door every Friday to spend time with their families and have the money to enjoy life.
" We are not going to beg for a pay rise of 5% and 3% - we are going to demand it. We are going to fight for it. We earn it - we deserve it.
" Never before has the wage gap between management and workers been so wide, and if we let it, it will only get wider.
" This is only the beginning. We are not going to give up.
" Don't ask what your Union can do for you - it is you and me and all of us together who are the strength and the power and the Union.
" United we bargain - Divided we beg, " Merlene Cotter said.
Claim is reasonable and affordable
"St John of God's stated values are 'justice, compassion, respect, excellence and hospitality'," Helen Creed said.
"Members feel the hospital's management are not applying these values in their dealings with staff."
St John of God's operates two private hospitals in Perth.
Helen Creed said the union members' claim for two wage increases of 5% and 3% over a two year agreement is both reasonable and affordable.
She said the only pay rise the workers have had over the last two years was a $10 per week increase over twelve months ago.
"At the stopwork meeting on Friday, members talked about how some of the staff at these hospitals can't afford to fix their cars when they break down - we are really talking about 'the working poor', people who John Howard and Tony Abbot deny exist.
"Our members care deeply about the welfare of patients at their hospitals - they just want a bit of the same treatment from management."
by Andrew Casey
Instead all they've done is empower the union, with nearly a dozen new members signing on.
" Our members were angry, and they got organised, when they heard that management was changing security staff rosters - trying to arrange it so they wouldn't need security people three days a week," Annie Owens, NSW LHMU Hotel Union Secretary said.
" Management had a plan - they were going to give themselves a bit more exercise. The bosses said they would get out from behind their desks and do the rounds.
" The management plan said the bosses would 'cover' for the licensed security guards when the hotel had rostered them off the job.
" LHMU members felt the exercise plan for the bosses might be OK, but the plan threatened the jobs, the working hours and the pay of security staff.
Compromise Safety and Security
" Our members also felt the management plan would also compromise safety and security in the workplace.
" This 5-star hotel is open for business 24 hours a day, alcohol is available for sale, the restaurants and the bars can get loud and boisterous - safety and security has to be a priority," Annie Owens said.
" A top quality hotel like the Wentworth Hotel - which can charge nearly $1000 a night for a room - sells peace of mind when it sells its rooms to well-heeled overseas tourists and business people.
" We believed the security and safety of hotel guests, as well as the workers, could be compromised by cutting back on the services of licensed security staff . If the guests don't feel secure they stop booking rooms - and that again effects our members' jobs."
Solidarity
Brett Edwards, the LHMU security delegate at the Wentworth Hotel, said his people were surprised and heartened at the way other hotel workers, and the union, quickly backed them in their cause.
" The rest of the hotel staff told us that the security workers would get their support. The union members wanted a win for the security staff.
" They wanted them to get back their regular hours, save their pay and their jobs - and deliver security for all the guests and all the workers, " Brett Edwards said.
" The management plan didn't factor in the workers' solidarity. In the face of this solidarity the management quickly backed down.
" The support that we got showed even those people who were not in the union what collective action can deliver," Brett said
Second Victory
This is the second time this year that the solidarity of Wentworth Hotel workers has saved jobs. Read
Wentworth Twenty restored to the roster
Annie Owens, the LHMU Hotel Union Secretary said she was sure the management plan never factored in that they might lose to the workers.
" But the fact that their plan lost has empowered the workers - and the win has meant more people taking out LHMU membership. Overnight a dozen more people signed up with the LHMU."
by Jeremy Vermeesch
The early warning comes after a Parliamentary Committee exposed a Howard Government plan to prevent more than 200,000 voters, mainly young people or those who have moved house recently, from getting on the electoral roll after the election is announced.
The Government-backed report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters calls for the electoral roll to be closed to new enrolments at 6pm on the day the Prime Minister announces an election - instead of allowing the current seven-day period for people to get their voting details in order. The report also calls for a reduction from seven days to three days to register a change of address.
Opinion polling suggests that the groups being targeted by the Government - young people and home renters - tend to vote against the Coalition.
The legal changes threaten the votes of an estimated 150,000 young people (ie: those voting for the first time, many who turned 18 since the last election) and even more people who may be enrolled at the wrong address.
The Government is considering introducing the changes in its planned Elections and Referendums Amendment Bill which could go before Federal Parliament later this year.
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) figures show more than 430,000 people enrolled or updated their enrolment in the seven-day cut-off period before the 1996 Federal Election. For the 1998 election, the figure was 351,913. For the 1999 Republic Referendum, 315,104 enrolments were processed - half of them (155,000) from first-time voters.
Of the new enrolments for the 1999 Referendum, 18 and 19-year-olds made up 75% of the new enrolments, compared to 50% for the 1998 Federal Election. Further, 60% of all enrolment activity over the 1999 Referendum Close of Rolls period came from the 17-29 year old age group.
Under John Howard's plan, such people - primarily young and first time voters - will not be able to vote unless they enrol with the AEC before an election is called. Many observers expect Mr Howard to announce the election in November, but it could be at any time this year.
The AEC opposes Mr Howard's plan to stop people voting. In repeated submissions to the Joint Committee, the AEC warns that the Government's recommendations would stop many young people from voting while doing nothing to improve the accuracy of the roll, which is Mr Howard's stated justification for the changes in the first place.
"In fact, the expectation is that the rolls for the election will be less accurate (AEC's italics) because less time will be available for existing electors to correct their enrolments and for new enrolments to be received. This expected outcome is in direct conflict with the stated policy intention of the Government to improve the accuracy of the rolls," the AEC submission said.
The AEC is conducting an ongoing enrolment program. Australians aged over 18 are required by law to enrol to vote. Seventeen-year-olds may register provisionally, but will only be allowed to vote after turning 18. Enrolment forms are available:
- At post offices
- On the AEC website: www.aec.gov.au
- From the AEC, telephone on 13 23 26
by Paddy Gorman
Rio's Hunter Valley manager last week told the local media that the company would not reinstate the 11 victimised workers it was found guilty of unfairly dismissing on 20 October 1998.
In the test case on behalf of 108 victimised Hunter Valley No.1 mineworkers, that has taken over two years to decide, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ordered the reinstatement of the 11 along with full back-pay.
However, the mine's manager, Andrew Harding, told the Newcastle Herald that the company had no intention of reinstating the victimised mineworkers.
Our Union has responded to this outrage by reminding Rio Tinto that it is not above the law. We are presently being briefed by our legal advisers on whether the comments constitute contempt and how the company can be prosecuted.
In the meantime, as Rio Tinto contemplates a huge settlement with the 108 victimised Hunter Valley mineworkers, it is still locked in a similar case with our Union over the unfair dismissals of 86 mineworkers at its Mount Thorley mine. Rio Tinto used the same rotten system of victimisation to dismiss them as it used at Hunter Valley No.1.
The following is an extract from a letter to General Secretary Bruce Watson from a victimised Hunter Valley No.1 miner:
"I have just received news of our win in the unfair dismissal case. I don't know whether to laugh or cry given the emotional strain this has put on all involved over the last few years. I can finally hold my head up in the community again. It is worth noting the support we were given by our families and the Union during the long running battle against what can only be described as a weeping festering cancer known as Rio Tinto".
Victimised Blair Athol Miners Demand Jobs Back
Meanwhile, The 16 Blair Athol coal mineworkers found to have been victimised by Rio Tinto have demanded their jobs back as the company continues to drag the saga through the courts with an appeal against the Commission's order that they be reinstated with full backpay to July 1998.
Although Rio Tinto must continue to pay the victimised mineworkers while the appeal is before the Court, they point out that the company hasn't a leg to stand on following the Hunter Valley decision that establishes a clear pattern of victimisation.
Blair Athol CFMEU Lodge President Garry Barnes told the local media that Rio Tinto "is paying contractors to do the work we should be doing. Our families have suffered enough. Rio Tinto should end this persecution and settle with all workers it has victimised", said Garry Barnes.
The NSW Nurses Association annual conference this week unanimously called on NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca to initiate a special case in the Industrial Relations Commission to review nurses wages.
They say wage increases are urgently needed to overcome the serious nurse shortage now confronting the State - a shortage that has led to reductions in services.
NSW Nurses general secretary Sandra Moait says that nurses are determined that they are not left behind as the poor relation of the health profession.
In the NSW public health service, the first year rate of pay for a registered nurse is 8.3 per cent less than the first year rate for other health professionals. At the other end of the scale, the eight-year registered nurse rate is 8.2 per cent less than the seventh year rate for therapists.
Senior Carr Government ministers Treasurer Michael Egan, Health Minister Craig Knowles and Della Bosca have agreed to meet to discuss the issue on August 6.
About 400 delegates - representing 48,000 across the state - have been in Sydney this week for the conference.
The rally, organised by the CEPU, will be held outside Australia Post's Sydney Headquarters in Strawberry Hills at 3pm on Monday.
CEPU state secretary Jim Metcher says the rally is the first industrial action of its kind since 1986 and comes in response to an increased militancy by management under the Howard Government.
"Over the last decade, workers have cooperated with management to turn Australia Post into one of the most efficient and profitable postal services in the world," Metcher says.
"They've been rewarded with a determination on the part of management to sell off any profitable parts of the organization and contract out their jobs."
Anger is rising over the recent decision to contract out three jobs from the Stockton mail centre. Management has now indicated they intend to use the same model in other regional centres.
And Metcher says that Australia Post has announced its intention to close 100 corporate Post offices - although the locations are still unknown. After seeing 2,000 jobs cut in the past two years, Metcher says workers have had enough.
The Federal Government wants the transfer to be a prerequisite for the privatisation of Freight Corp and the National Rail Corporation.
Under the deal, the track would be transferred to the new corporation, with users charged for access to the line.
Unions believe the plan - currently before the Carr Government - is being pushed by federal Finance Minister John Fahey.
The Australian Services Union's George Panigirs says the proposal is unacceptable and could lead to industrial action.
"This proposal would not only impact on regional jobs, but also on regional services such as those provided by CountryLink," Panigiris says.
The rail unions and Labor Council have sought a meeting with Premier Bob Carr.
The Australian Services Union (ASU) today claimed that the reorganisation of the troubled Coles Myer Group will cost 70 positions in the next month at the Geelong Head Office of Target Stores. It says up to 800 other jobs are still at risk - and there have been no moves by either the State Government or Coles Myer to save these jobs in Geelong.
The ASU Branch President Martin Foley said today:
"Coles Myer is centralising all its business units (Target, Myer Stores, K Mart) Head Office buying and support functions to Melbourne. In doing so Coles Myer is abandoning regional communities. With Target Stores Head Office in Geelong being the only non- Melbourne Head Office in the Group this move spells trouble for the Geelong community and economy. And to make matters worse the State Government - elected on the back of regional communities - has gone missing on the issue."
Mr Foley's comments come after:
� The first meeting of the Geelong Community leaders roundtable held today to call upon both the Coles Myer Limited Group and the State Government maintaining all 850 jobs in Geelong.
� The ASU reached its goal of a petition to the state government from the Geelong community of over 10,000 signatures to stand up for the Geelong Head Office jobs.
� Coles Myer extended its trial of centralising to go beyond the 20 jobs already affected in the Footwear area to also include a further 50 jobs in the Bedding, Bath and Furnishings areas. These jobs are all moving from the different business units in Coles Myer Limited to a centralised Melbourne CBD location.
Mr Foley said:
"It is now time for the State Government and Coles Myer Limited to demonstrate its commitment to regional communities by committing to keep these high value service sector jobs in Geelong. How many more jobs will have to be lost before this matter becomes a concern to the State Government and to Australia's largest retailer? It's time for Mr Bracks to put up or shut up for the Geelong community."
"The workers at Target Head Office in Geelong are fighting to keep their jobs in their community. They have collected over 10,000 signatures in support of their campaign. The least they are demanding is that the State Government and the Board of Coles Myer Limited demonstrate their commitment to regional communities in actions by keeping the Target site in Geelong. We are demanding that if any centralisation of work is to be done then it should be done so as to keep jobs in Geelong, not lose them down the highway to Melbourne."
"The Bracks Government's commitment to regional communities looks fine on paper but we have yet to see any evidence of it in this case. The Coles Myer Board, as one of the largest corporations in Australia, has to ask itself whether it has an obligation to the regional communities that it so readily milks profits from." Mr Foley said.
The ASU has announced plans for a sustained political and community campaign to force both the state Government and Coles Myer to commit to the Geelong Jobs.
For further campaign information visit: http://www.savetargetjobs.org
by Liz Phillips
QCU Acting General Secretary Chris Barrett said the application for the wage increase will be before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) from tomorrow, Thursday, 19 July.
In May the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) awarded $13 - $17 increase for workers on Federal Awards.
The QCU has applied to flow-on the national wage increase.
"The ACTU's original claim was $28 or 5 per cent increase, but the Australian Industrial Relations Commission awarded $13 - $17, " Mr Barrett said.
"Because the amounts awarded were well below the original claim, a $13 a week increase is necessary for the 200,000 Queensland workers reliant on Awards," he said.
"Commerce Queensland are out of touch if they think $13 to $17 increase is too much. The employer's counter-claim of $10 is just a joke," Mr Barrett said.
"Commerce Queensland should tell the workers who are reliant on Award wages for their income that a $13 increase is too much!" he said.
"Despite the reasoning the increase will be totally absorbed by higher inflation from the GST and associated cost increases," Mr Barrett said.
"While a $13-a-week rise for the lowest paid workers is not enough the QCU has no choice but to flow the increase on at this time," he said.
"By the time the State Wage Claim comes around again, the workers dependent on Awards are obviously going to lose out," he said.
"Queensland Unions will continue their efforts in respect to enterprise bargaining to achieve real wage increases for workers," Mr Barrett said.
Rally against the WORLD BANK
5pm, August 1, 2001, ANA Hotel, 176 Cumberland St, Sydney, near the Rocks, Teach in July 29, 2pm.
James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank is in town! You can pay $250 to hear him speak on the role of corporations in "reducing world poverty" or you can join the AID/WATCH Soup Kitchen and alternative forum.
Demand that the World Bank DROP THE DEBT! Support affected communities who demand adequate reparations for the environmental and social devestation which is a result of the programs and projects the World Bank has funded for the last 50 years.
Show support for the people of Papua New Guinuea who have been killed while protesting against the World Bank and IMF's economic reforms.
WORLD BANK TEACH IN and banner painting action Sunday 29th July, 2pm to 5:30 17 Lord St, St Peters.
(bring clothes to paint in and paint-brushes if you have them)
For more information call Melanie or Melita on 02 9387 5210 or
email [email protected]
Breaking the chains of debt seminars August 10 and 11
Two chances to hear Michael Rowbotham's radical expose of the monetary system
Lunchtime seminar 1.00 pm Friday, August 10, NSW Parliament House Theatrette, Macquarie Street, Sydney Waged $10; Concession $5;
Michael Rowbotham, author of Breaking the Chains of Debt and
Stephanie de Ruyter : Financial Reform in New Zealand Deputy Leader NZ Democrats.
Please book : Phone/message Frances or Bruce, 02 9810 7812
Conference 10am-3pm Saturday, August 11 Market Campus, University of Technology, Sydney (1-59 Quay St, Block Markets)
Father Brian Gore, Jubilee Australia : The Urgency of Debt Cancellation
Michael Rowbotham U.K. : Breaking the Chains of Debt
Dr Shann Turnbull: The Use of Central Banks to Spread Ownership
Stephanie de Ruyter : Deputy Leader NZ Democrats, Community Loans & Financial Reform in NZ
Afternoon Panel and Audience :
Bendigo Community Bank, Ethical Investments, Eco Forests, Interest Free Community Loans, Re-regulating the Banks
Another Galbraith Comes to Town
Perhaps the foremost US thinker on wage inequality, James K. Galbraith is visiting Sydney thanks to South Australia's Hawke Institute and the newly formed Whitlam Institute run by Peter Botsman.
Galbraith will be speaking on "Inequality" at Parramatta's Riverside Theatres at 6.30pm on Wednesday, July 25.
This is a not to be missed event for anyone involved in wage bargaining and general trade union and community issues. Professor Galbraith is the son of the illustrious J.K. Galbraith.
William McKell - Boilermaker, Labor Premier, Governor General - 1st August.
At the next meeting of the Sydney Branch of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Dr. Chris Cunneen, from Macquarie University, will be speaking on the life and times of NSW Labor Premier of the 1940s, William McKell. Chris's biography of McKell was published last year by New South Wales University Press. Chris was formerly deputy general editor of the Australian Dictionary of Biography in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. He contributed numerous entries to the ADB and is currently involved in the production of an ADB 'Missing Persons' volume, which will include entries in many labour movement figures who missed out on an entry in the main ADB volumes.
All with an interest in labour history are most welcome to attend. Time: 6.30-8.00pm Wednesday 1 August. Venue: 1st Floor, 136 Chalmers St., Surry Hills (above Tom Mann Theatre). The talk will be followed by dinner at the Royal Exhibition Hotel, cnr. Chalmers & Devonshire Streets.
For further details, contact John Shields on 0403166490.
RECKONINGS
Reckonings. Looking for new ways to listen, because home is a personal thing.
Reckonings brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists: Jonathan Bottrell Jones, Ruark Lewis, Romaine Moreton and Nuha Saad, to collaborate on an installation which inaugurates Performance Space�s ongoing project which reflects on and examines the Australian contexts and meanings of reconciliation(s). Working with the idea of the locale, the artists draw on personal memories and histories of family in and around Redfern. Reckonings sets out to rewrite and remap Redfern - the edge of the city, the centre of interracial and cultural interaction, and the black heart of Sydney.
The idea of an Aboriginal place like Redfern evokes the politics of cultural and social �unknowing� in contemporary Australia. By creating a temporary studio collective, the artists have made a work using photography, light, sound recordings, film and video, sculptural installation and painting. The work spotlights the multi-dimensionalism of this inner city precinct and examines the effects of urban consolidation on low income communities and marginalised groups.
Reckonings is the result of six months of debates, arguments and listening, in which the artists explored the multiplicity of Redfern�s history, visited each other in Redfern and crossed boundaries. Reckonings reflects on the past with the intention of opening debate about the future of Australia.
Opening: Thursday 26 July 6pm 8pm
To be opened by Tanya Plibersek - the Federal Member for Sydney
Artists: Jonathan Bottrell Jones, Ruark Lewis, Romaine Moreton & Nuha Saad
Curators: Ihab Shalbak & Rea
Exhibiting: 27 July 26 August Wed-Sat 12noon-6pm FREE
Forum: 26 August 2pm
Performance Space - 199 Cleveland Street Redfern
Info: 9698 7235 email: [email protected]
www.performancespace.com.au
Congratulations to the workers at Hunter Valley No 1 who won reinstatement & back pay (Workers Online #102). I wish to raise, however, a very disturbing aspect of the AIRC's findings.
In the case, the AIRC found against the company on a number of grounds (& thus ordered re-instatement & compensation), but upheld the company's actions in two other important respects.
(a) The AIRC found that "the criteria chosen by management are not new or uncommon and just because there is no agreement with employees or their representatives does not make the system unfair". Therefore, the employer can apply redundancy criteria to which its employees have not agreed. Think about it.
(b) One of the above criteria was "acceptance of change with enthusiasm". This is highly alarming. "Change" is one of the contemporary terms by which employers refer to attacks on our working conditions. Not only are employees supposed to accept this on pain of dismissal in redundancy situations, but we have to accept it with enthusiasm.
So, according to the AIRC, the employer now has the right to impose values & attitudes of its choosing on its employees. If the AIRC's decisions are allowed to flow through to the rest of the workforce, we will find that the employer will be dictating not just our actions, but our thoughts as well.
A contract of employment used to be about the sale of our labour. According to the AIRC, it now includes the sale of our souls.
We cannot let this stand.
In Solidarity,
Greg Platt
Well it has finally come down to this, our Labor Party run by politicians who would make better Liberals than the present ones.
Chiefly and company must be turning in their graves at the antics of the present incumbents.
Well it has come to this that for the first time Ill not be voting for the ALP.
At the moment it is just a vehicle for the egos of the likes of Carr and his henchmen.
I'm involved in the Prince of Wales and the maintenance and energy there is being sold off for some short term gains, fair enough the energy but to deprive workmen of their jobs and benefits is the ultimate horror for a party that has traditionally been the workers friend.
I only wish the workers were more militant and castrate those bastards who have sold out on us.
We were going to demo at Carrs house in Maroubra, interesting that the unions were against it ,all in bed together???well we might yet do it at his office in Maroubra,it will be the biggest disgrace the ALP has ever faced.And about time Carr's ego has got so big his head can't get through the door, maybe bringing him down to earth might somehow save the ALP but I feel it's a lost cause now.
Mike
P.S. Your editorial on the alp hit the mark, maybe we should as unionists stop giving donations that are in the end used against us.
It's the first time in my experience that the victim is paying the assasin Carr and his henchmen.
Well I'm going to leave the union as I don't want my money going to them.
What a travesty as exposed in the article "High Farce", Daily Telegraph, Monday July 16 , 2001.
There can be no more compelling reason for reform, than the excision of any corrupt behaviour from those that are exceedingly well paid to serve , and it could be found that some spheres of Local Government are as corrupt as the whited sepulchers.
How else can one explain these trips to destinations that have no real consequence to the ratepayers who fund these trips?
In our city of Penrith , the council can afford to send the Deputy Mayor Greg Davies , and two other councilors plus two staff on a jaunt to America and Europe to examine housing estates . To get ideas for the rape of the A.D.I. site?
A development which Penrith Council has publicly opposed.
Then these ratepayer funded tourists , are off the check out White Water Facilities in Europe. Is not the Olympic White Water facility at Penrith the best in the world?
Unfortunately this council is unable to fix the potholes in its roads, keep its parks mown and free from rubbish , or its streets safely kerbed and guttered.
This $40 000 expense could be better spent in repairing roads, cleaning parks or funding to provide employment for local youth or unemployed.
We can no longer afford the luxury of providing a kindergarten at the ratepayer's expense for the toadies of political parties.
Its time for real reform, and the State Labor Government must now grasp this stinging nettle of local government mismanagement, incompetence, and inappropriate use of public monies and govern for all the people.
What is needed is a man for All Seasons , a man who wants his pound of flesh , Shylock , Perhaps or Frank Sartor , Even!
Tom Collins
by Peter Lewis
CFMEU's John Sutton |
********************
The Royal Commission now appears to be a fait accompli. What do you think it will achieve?
Probably very little, except waste a great deal of public money. The building industry is one of the most enquired into industries in this country. There has been a series of Royal Commissions and enquiries down the years into the building industry.
I don't believe there is the objective basis for this enquiry, and it has a heavy tone of a political witch-hunt. So if you are looking at sound public policy formulations to emerge, there is some considerable doubt in mind that that is possible, given the politicised nature of what we are likely to get.
Given that it will take place, what would be investigated if it was a genuine enquiry?
We would like to see a lot of emphasis on the rooting out of crooked behaviour; criminal activities - especially: the area of taxation avoidance which is rampant in the industry; the use of illegal migrant labour which is very widespread; the use of phoenix companies to dodge tax and other entitlements that are due to workers. A whole range of issues like that do require some substantial attack by a government that was serious about cleaning out fraudulent and criminal practices. However, I have got severe doubts as to whether the terms of reference will properly focus on those sorts of serious policy areas that are in need of attention.
Just on the corruption issue - you yourself have raised the issue of corruption. Why is a Royal Commission not the way to go to deal with those issues if they are so serious?
Because a Royal Commission called by Tony Abbott and the Liberal Government that he comes from is highly likely to be a politicised forum in which trade unions and union issues get very little balanced treatment.
We have a strong view that the tackling of corruption and criminal elements is a matter that is best handled by the police and other government authorities. It is not just a belief we hold, it is something we have carried through in practice by supplying, to the NSW Police, considerable evidence about crooked activities that we have uncovered.
We have also written to the Police Commissioners in at least two States - both NSW and Western Australia - and have indicated that we will provide maximum cooperation in their endeavours to clean up any crooked activities they come across in the industry. And in fact, we are more than willing to supply with any information that comes our way.
So, we have a strong view that the police, whether they be State or Federal police, are the proper persons to be tackling criminality, because generally they do so in a non-politicised environment.
You lived through the Gyles Royal Commission. What lessons should that teach us?
The Gyles Royal Commission went for nearly two years. The lawyers of Sydney made a motza. They had a veritable picnic at the expense of the NSW taxpayer. That Royal Commission cost nearly $23 million of taxpayer's money. It cost the union movement in the order of $2.8 million to defend themselves through that Enquiry, and it did not really prove a conducive environment to turn up sound policy prescriptions that would advance the building industry.
It was an adversarial forum and it was not in our view a good expenditure of monies. In other words, the taxpayer did not get value for money out of that forum, and there are better ways to go about achieving policy changes.
It set out to find corruption in the building industry amongst unions. Were any unions charged out of Gyles?
Another thing we learned out of Gyles and that Royal Commission is that you end up with a media circus - or trial by media is probably another way to put it. Our union's name was literally belted from pillar to post, day in day out, for over two years, but when the time came for the Royal Commissioner to give his final verdict, he was forced - and I say "forced" because he was no friend of the building unions - he was forced to admit that there was no evidence of widespread or serious corruption on the part of the full time union officials. Likewise in respect of violence, he said that there was no serious evidence of systematic violence or activity of that kind on the part of the full time union officials.
So, after a vast expenditure of monies, our names were essentially cleared. There were some union officials - a small number - two or three - that they then sought to prosecute. Those prosecutions were long and costly and each and every one of them collapsed and no official of our union, or any of the building unions was convicted of anything arising out of the Gyles Royal Commission.
Let's talk about thuggery. The unions are accused of thuggish tactics. What is the experience of your typical building worker working on a building site like? Is there violence in that workplace?
The building industry is obviously a hard industry. It is an industry of males. It is hard physical labour and most of the employers that successfully survive in the building industry do so because they have got a hard edge to them - and so it is with the workforce. You can't be a pushover in the building industry as a worker or whatever capacity you are in because you will just get pushed around and treated badly in quite an aggressive environment.
And so it is with the unions in the building industry. We have to fight hard for every gain that we achieve and things might not be as polite or as genteel as they may be in some other work environments - in white-collar environments or the public service. That is not to say that most building workers, or most employers, or certainly the building unions are involved in thuggish behaviour. The vast majority of people who make up the building industry are decent, hard working Australians. They are not interested in thuggish or any kind of bully-boy behaviour. And as much as the media might like to portray some sort of bully-boy image that is not the reality for most people who work in the construction industry.
Do you feel there is sometimes a double standard in the focus that is placed on a bit of jostling on a picket line, compared to the total ignoring of death and serious injuries on building sites?
Absolutely. There is a horrendous toll of workers being maimed, injured for life and killed in the building industry. It is a very difficult and arduous environment to work in. Somehow we are meant to just watch our members get killed and not take any sort of emotive position about it. Well, building workers do get emotional about their safety and about the safety of their workmates. And so does the union. We get emotional about these matters.
I know the media would like us to be dispassionate and have some cold, calculated view of it all, but we are flesh and blood human beings obviously, and people react with passion when things are manifestly unjust, and there is a heap of injustices in the building industry. Not just safety.
The amount of avoidance of workers entitlement that goes on in the industry - the amount of shoddy treatment of workers is manifold. The union only often gets to the tip of the iceberg in breaking up some of the rorts and dealing with some of the abject injustices in the building industry. It is riddled with injustices, and I don't think you will see in any Tony Abbott Royal Commission the kind of injustices that I am talking about, where tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars of workers' entitlements are robbed annually from them, with vast amounts of taxes not remitted to the Tax Office, where rorts are just widespread.
We have tried to bring to the attention of this government the many serious abuses going on in the industry - whether they be in the area of tax; whether it be illegal immigrant labour. Nearly always our cries and calls to the government fall on deaf ears, and I fear it will again prove so in the Royal Commission, because I fear the terms of reference will essentially be directed at attacking the building unions, and essentially at attacking industrial relations practices that Tony Abbott and his ilk don't find acceptable.
Finally, are you concerned that the building unions could jeopardise a Beazley Labor Government?
It is certainly not our goal to jeopardise a Beazley Labor Government. We obviously want to see the current Federal Coalition removed from office. They have presided over the most unjust industrial laws that have been witnessed in our country in the last 100 years. They have in fact helped bring about a very combative industrial relations environment, which is spawning some of the current excesses that have been noted in the media lately. But for a whole range of reasons we want to see this Coalition Government removed. Its social policies are deplorable. It is presiding over an Australia that is becoming more and more an unjust society, so for a whole range of reasons we want to see that government replaced.
It is certainly not our intention to embarrass or put the Labor Government in any difficulty, and certainly not the union leadership's position to in any way advocate violent behaviour or stupid behaviour that can jeopardise the good name of most Australian trade unionists.
The important thing here is to keep things in perspective. Most trade unionists and most trade union officials go about their business in a responsible way, and so it is with the CFMEU. None of us are perfect, and at times emotions do flair and things happen that we would regret later, but let us keep it in perspective. The number of incidents that Tony Abbott is trying to point to are very limited and few and far between, compared to the injustices that are perpetrated on workers, day in day out in the workplace in my industry and in many other industries.
In fact, it is only the prevalence of strong unions in the building industry that tempers, or curbs, some of the injustices that that industry, of its own motion naturally does throw up. Without a strong CFMEU one shudders to think how unfair and uncivilised the building industry would be.
e-change |
*************
One of the central impacts of the spread of network technologies has been the diminution in the power of the state and the collapse of national borders. Within 100 years the Nation State has gone from being the dominant global entity to a network of mid-level players in the global economy. Today the leaders of most nation States (with the exception of superpowers such as the US and China) recognise they are interdependent and are more interested in taking down barriers, than building new ones.
To many, this phenomenon that has been called 'globalisation' has become Public Enemy Number One. People take to the streets to protest this change, attributing all the evils of modern life to the collapse of the Nation-State - forgetting that the same institution has been the author of so much misery and war over the past few centuries.
If each age reflects the technology of its time, then the Nation State era reached its high point alongside the dominance of the broadcast media. Inaccessible Heads of State presided over their subjects from on high - making universal laws, issuing decrees and dispensing public money through an intricate hierarchy of authority. Where the Head of State was a monarch, there was no need to interact with subjects. Dictators might rise to power with popular support, but once there would typically exercise power by coercion. Only in democracy was there a two-way exchange - and only here at election time.
While the National Government was the overarching structure; the ultimate hierarchy, newspapers and television were the most influential force shaping public opinion. In an information poor society broadcast media was widely consumed because it was virtually the only source of news about the world outside the local neighbourhood. They were a channel for information from the top of the hierarchy down to the populace. While the Fourth Estate fulfilled a scrutinising function in democratic countries, even here information flow could be carefully controlled, through the controlled release of information, official secrets legislation and defamation and libel laws.
The broadcast structure was effective in developing a sense of unity across nations. By creating a common pool of information, it allowed larger communities to develop a unitary national culture with the governmental structures at its apex. But it did so at the exclusion of both outside foreign influences and internal regional interests. This left the community driven by Nationalism. Populist leaders were able to gain greater authority through the manipulation of this sentiment - often resulting in open conflict with other Nations. Individuals were prepared to die for their Nation State - and did so in their millions.
The crisis for the Nation State has emerged because it is no longer able to control the flow of information across national boundaries. In a world increasingly shaped by the Internet and the electronic media, geography itself has become less important in determining perspective. If information flows freely between boarders and within Nations, governments, then the media people consume will have a more international perspective, making it difficult for a government to maintain a single culture that is hostile to outside influences. At the same time, the hierarchies that support national governmental authority are under pressure because of the better information flow - driven by new network technologies. And as the structure weakens so does its power, including a diminishing capacity to control the media, meaning more information leaks out. And around it goes.
Diverstiy Rules
Western culture is today embracing diversity rather than reinforcing the fear of difference and isolationism which characterised the Industrial Age. Private sector companies are beginning to recognise the bottom line value in maintaining a culturally diverse organisation. The different has become chic on so many levels. And as nations become increasingly prone to influence from external factors, beyond their control, then their ultimate power as the source of the mono-culture necessarily erodes.
National governments are instead being buffeted around in the global sea of ideas and influences - constantly struggling to react and adjust to the rapidly changing global environment. They are no longer the masters of their destinies - the nation is now just a constituent of the global community, struggling to influence events.
The most stark example of this is the move to economic globalisation - the net effect of floating exchange rates, falling tariff barriers, shifting trade balances. In areas as diverse as petrol prices, home interest rates and the level of taxation, the global economic performance of a nation state has an impact on the quality of life of ordinary citizens. When the economy is growing, jobs are created and prosperity is spread; when things go bad people lose jobs. But government is no longer operating in a controlled environment. It's not enough to pull a few economic levers. The economy is interrelated with that of every other Nation State, beyond the control of any one (with perhaps, a single exception, the largest Nation State of all, the United States).
This also means the integrity of national culture, along geographic lines is compromised. Culture takes on a new meaning when it is no longer an absolute, but can be constructed by and for each individual member of society. We begin to operate in a sea of cultural influences, able to pick, choose and blend - depending upon our needs and personal preference. But this can only be achieved in an environment of tolerance and mutual understanding - the cornerstones of hybrid western culture. And in losing our monoculture, we end up gaining something of far greater substance.
Critics of globalisation would argue that both economically and culturally, the demise of the Nation State has been replaced by the dominance of American corporations. In both business and culture, it could be argued that far from creating a hybrid culture, we are seeing the creation of a mono-culture. While this argument has superficial appeal, it misses a few important points. First, America is the most culturally diverse of all the traditional nation-states, a country built on immigration from the more structured societies of the Old World. Secondly, in both economics and culture, the corporations are freeing themselves of national bonds. Companies source labour from around the globe, as does Hollywood. The other important point to note is that this is occurring in a context where broadcast technology still dominates, where the mass media can still construct an American dream. As discussed earlier, it will be interesting to watch the ways the mass media attempt to defy gravity as network technologies are taken up over the coming years.
There is also a marked change in the way the nations states of the world govern themselves. In the Industrial Age, nation states based their power on their ability to conquer territory in less economically developed parts of the globe that delivered them the raw materials to generate wealth for their people. They would fight against other powerful states for even more territory, more markets or plain global superiority. The citizens would benefit from the markets, but would pay the price as fodder when competition for markets led to armed warfare. These powerful nation States would form alliances amongst themselves that would shift with self-interest. The conflict model thrived through the 20th Century with two wars and probably reached its high point in the Cold War years where the entire globe was spit between its allegiance to one or other of the two super-powers.
In the wake of the Cold War, nation states are beginning to operate in a different, more networked way. The emergence of bodies such as the United Nations has created international consensus to intervene on national sovereignty at times when the vast majority of members deem it necessary. The development of international treaties has accelerated since World War II, as leaders recognised there were more efficient ways of resolving trade disputes than killing people.
This change is approaching a high-point with the move to integration within Europe. Currently the European Union is log-jammed with nations from the former Communist bloc, seeking membership and the trade benefits this brings. In return they are prepared to submit their autonomy on a range of social, economic and environment issues in order to win membership. The EU is only the most stark of examples of the move from unitary national governments to a more complex matrix of governmental structures with detailed and strong lines of accountability between levels and back to the communities they serve. There have been similar blocs developed in North America and Asia. Individual nations submit to these broader structures because they have accepted it is in their interests.
And if globalism is putting pressure on the Nation State hierarchy from the top, so too are regional interests pulling the structure down from the bottom. A Nation State like Australia is now seen as a series of competing component communities. States bid against each other for international investment opportunities. Country and city regions argue for a bigger share of the limited pie. A cultural gap is perceived between the Sydney-Canberra-Sydney Axis and the rest of the nation. While we all still cheer for Australia at the Olympics, our political concerns are local: health resources for my area, education, an airport in their backyard not mine.
While these regional priorities have gained a higher profile amidst high levels of media concentration, network technologies promise to take the trend to a higher plane. In the information age, regions will be able to develop strong local media that serve the interests of a smaller community. The Nation State will face much more competition for community loyalty than ever before. Instead the voices of the regions will not only have to be heard, but actually be heeded.
Localised communication networks will allow communities greater capacity to share, develop and implement new ideas. They will no longer need to rely on central institutions of government or media to talk to each other. Centralised government will come under pressure to change its role from gatekeeper of information, to facilitator of activity conducted at a community level. In a way this is a return to the past - the localised village structures reactivated, only this time, a community need not be geographical - it could be based on a particular area of interest - but the network technology will help identify and create communities of common interest. Ultimately, our thesis is that the freer flow of information across a growing interconnected network is driving this process.
The One Nation Backlash
Pauline Hanson and her supporters emerged as part of the inevitable reaction against changes brought about by the Information Age, the decline of the nation state and globalisation. Even their name - One Nation - reflected their fundamental objective - the restoration of the integrity of the Nation State. They long for an era when national governments supported a single culture within its geographic boundaries, indigenous people and immigrants were assimilated or excluded.
One Nation's policies embody a return to the values of the nation state era. They stand for such Industrial Age structures as immigration control, protectionism, heightened national defense, unitary culture, government control, assimilation and Keynsianism. They represent the views of the sections of our community that have lost out in the changes driven by globalisation and the information age. In particular they represent large sections of Australia's traditional working class and rural constituencies; blue collar people whose jobs and security are most under threat by globalisation and information technology; the people to whom the Information Age poses the most uncertainty.
Their concerns are very real because they come from the people at the hard edge of the transition taking place. One Nation support game from working people who were embittered by the loss of their jobs overseas - regardless that many more jobs were being created in other parts of the economy. The base also came from the swelling ranks of middle managers, retrenched from firms after decades of loyal service. And it cam from the regions, where government had failed to manage the transition from a labour-intensive resource-based economy. From the perspectives of all these people, the changes occurring were scary, dangerous bad. They have seen the certainties of working life stripped away, while others enjoy wealth beyond their modest aspiration. In this context it was easy to find scapegoats in big business, overseas workers, even less powerful members of society such as indigenous Australians and welfare recipients.
One of the problems with this analysis is that while international markets are an aspect of globalisation -and an often an ugly face - it hast come to be confused as the phenomenon in and of itself. But in many ways the problems workers have confronted is because companies have taken up new network technologies while maintaining Industrial Age modes of thinking. While they can access information, capital, components from around the globe, they have continued to view their workers as old-style units of labour. This deskilling of the workforce, pushing them onto individual contracts so they can be shed when the economy slows have all fuelled resistance to globalisaiton. But it is not the change, but the way it has been driven by footloose capital pre-occupied with the need to extract short-term profits for demanding shareholders that has maximised the pain.
The rise in discontent was also partly driven by failure of Labor government to adequately explain the process taking place, to prepare people for the change and negotiate with corporations on the responsibilities that should go with greater market freedom. At the start of the eighties the Hawke/Keating government embraced the changes brought about by the early stages of the Information Age with open arms. By floating the dollar, deregulating finance and reducing tariffs they recognised the trend towards globalisation, accepting that globalisation could not be resisted and that in the long term it would bring enormous wealth. But it did so as if we were all on our way to a gold-rush and by the time the eighties bubble had burst, everyone had forgotten Bondy's America Cup triumph and wanted things to slow down again.
Despite the popular mythology around the 1993 election, the defeat of the John Hewson came about because the Australian population were reform fatigued. Labor under Keating had driven them too far too fast and that they needed to slow things down - Hewson lost because he promised to speed things up even further. Conversley, in 1996 the Liberals sought to minimise their exposure by proposing only moderate polices - allowing the population to punish Paul Keating and Labor as they had wanted to in 1993. John Howard portrayed himself as a conservative and by doing so was able to see his government into its second term. His strategy has been to make the reforms towards globalisation, in the economic sphere, largely pushed by business - but to play to the conservative forces on social issues such as the republic or aboriginal reconciliation. John Howard does not really embrace the information age - is happy to serve business by making the necessary economic reforms to accommodate the global era, but is not prepared to accept the effects these changes are having upon our social and cultural fabric.
Since 1996 Labor has sought to re-connect with its working class base. In doing so it has shifted its attitude towards globalisation. Recognising that it has pushed its constituents - who had borne the brunt of push towards globalisation - far enough, the Labor Party amended its platform to seek to limit the effects of change. Now, in an election year, Labor sings the praises of the Knowledge Nation, without wanting to grab the reformist ball with the zeal of Keating. All of which serves to demonstrate that while the resentment of the transition from an Industrial-based to an Information-based society have been exploited politically over the past decade, there has not been a successful explaination for what is actually going on. The Keating Government tried, but got too caught up with the alchemy of economics, as if this was an end in itself.
Kim Beazley's current packaging of the 'Knowledge Nation' is the first attempt to begin to wrap these changes into an electorally saleable story. But the difficulty he is facing in getting his message through a media itself under stress by the increasing speed of information delivery, demanding bite-sized grabs rather than a prolix analysis shows what a difficult task he faces. And Beazley's bigger problem is that he doesn't have his whole Party behind this orientation - and until he can construct a Laborist rationale that explains the need for change and pain to his constituency, he will continue to struggle here.
Rowan Cahill |
****************
It was nearly midnight, 15 January 1998, and the ANL ship Australian Enterprise was off Fremantle. On board, a seaman headed for the toilet prior to beginning his shift. From behind him he heard the screamed command "Get down, get down". Looking around he saw six men in camouflage, balaclavas, and night-vision goggles, carrying automatic weapons with laser targeting devices.
"Hang on mate, I'm going for a piss", the seafarer said, as you would in such a situation. Whereupon he was grabbed by the throat, put in a choker hold, forced to the ground, and a gun shoved in his face.
The notorious Special Air Services Regiment was in action. The ship's crew had been told by their skipper that this training exercise was scheduled. The men were not happy about it, but there was little they could do; they were assured the engine room and crew quarters would not be involved.
According to the Department of Defence the exercise was anti-terrorist practice for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. More likely, in retrospect, given Peter Reith's proposed use of an ANL vessel for a scab operation during the hotting up stages of the 1998 War on the Waterfront, and the Dubai training of union-busters with military backgrounds, it was union-busting practice; after all the Maritime Union of Australia would not turn a unionised ship over to scabs, except at gunpoint.
The seaman subsequently received no apology or counselling; his neck swelled, and stiffened; he found it difficult to sleep. A doctor put him on a course of anti-inflammatory medication and sedatives, and he was eventually paid off with post-traumatic stress.
Yes, Tony Abbott, thuggery and violence are part of Australian industrial relations.
Another night, this time in rural New South Wales; August 2000. A young worker stoked a picket-line camp fire. This was his first industrial dispute; it had been in progress for the best part of the year. He wondered how long it would continue, as he thought of his young kids and the possibility of a lean Christmas.
His fellow rostered picketers were asleep nearby in the picket-line site shed. A few kilometres down the road another group of men slept in their shed at the other factory entrance.
"Hey mate". A voice called quietly from the boom gated factory entrance opposite. The young man looked up from the fire and saw a lone man beckoning. This man was part of a team of professional union-busting contractors recently hired interstate by factory management; these men acted tough, and boasted of martial arts prowess.
The young worker was naive. Apart from this being his first industrial dispute, he was not politically sophisticated. To a great extent his knowledge of life was limited to small-town schooling to Year 10 level, a rural apprenticeship, club cricket and soccer, Saturday nights in town, and marriage to the girl he started dating when they were in Year 9.
So he went across to the boom gate, curious and cautious. The contractor leant over the gate with macho ease. From nearby bushes two other contractors emerged; they smiled mockingly in the moonlight.
"You know what, c...?" the boom gate man asked rhetorically. And before the worker could reply, he was given an answer delivered with quiet menace. " I could fucken waste you here and now, and then we could all fucken well go home". The contractor formed 'a gun' with the fingers of his right hand, pointed them at the worker and clicked his tongue before moving off into the night.
The incident was subsequently reported to local police. But it was word against word, and the matter was dropped after police established the contractor was not licenced to carry a firearm. Apparently the line of reasoning was that the episode was all bluff, if it took place at all.
It was an incident characteristic of industrial disputes in regional and rural Australia, where Pinkerton-style union-busting contractors increasingly operate.
Yes, Tony Abbott, thuggery and violence are part of Australian industrial relations.
History Repeats |
***************
"Never have a Royal Commission unless you know the result." Nick Greiner in the 1990s and Malcolm Fraser in the 1980s neglected this sound piece of advice from former L-CP Treasurer, Artie Fadden. Tony Abbott, so busy looking to what he hopes is his own glamorous future, seems to be another conservative politician set on the same path.
The Building and Construction Royal Commission scenario is with us again. Short memories need a little prodding, and the antics of Greiner, Fahey and Gyles in the NSW industry in the early 1990s gave unwelcome headlines for some construction industry employers.
Tom McDonald sets out the course of the Gyles Commission in Intimate Union.
"When the Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry in NSW was set up even the Herald queried the Greiner government's motives. Its editorial of 8th October 1990 observed that "with no obvious trigger, the Royal Commission into the building industry has generated speculation about the government's motives for calling it", and "Not surprisingly then there is speculation that the inquiry is Mr Greiner's version of the 1954 Petrov Royal Commission"."
The background leading up to the establishment of the commission enlightens us to the motivations of the Liberals. Troubleshooters, a body-hire company dedicated to breaking union strength in the construction industry, signed a deal with the BLF. The director of Troubleshooters, Mr Groves, called Norm Gallagher 'an honourable man' (this after Gallagher had broken the NSW BLF and had been shown to be corrupt, in association with developers in Victoria). John Fahey, then Minister for Industrial Relations, joined Groves in suggesting that the BLF be re-registered. John Howard declared his support for Troubleshooters and Peter Costello was retained as counsel for the company.
A few days after the agreement was announced, a meeting was held in Fahey's office with representatives of the National Farmers Federation, a representative from Troubleshooters, and a builder named Donovan who owed thousands of dollars in unpaid wages.
Before long the Sunday Telegraph ran two feature stories about corruption and violence in the construction industry. Later the Sydney Morning Herald reported allegations by Donovan that he had been assaulted by a person who supposedly said "Here's a present from the BWIU - I'll be back."
FEDFA and the BWIU then called for the appointment of a national Ombudsperson for the industry, but Greiner set up Gyles and the Royal Commission, without the support of any major employer in the industry.
The unions decided to participate in the proceedings, and from day one they called upon Gyles to investigate corruption and illegal behaviour in relation to tax avoidance, 'cash-in-hand' payments, underpayment of wages and breaches of OHS standards. The union also raised the potential for corruption in dealings between builders, developers, local councils, politicians, public servants and the tendering process generally. The Commissioner, however, spent the time engaging an army of investigators to comb through union records. He took little note of the issues raised by the unions. Collusive tendering was a big issue that was of no interest to the Commissioner, until the union had approached Channel 9 with the issue, and they ran a story.
Despite his best efforts, as the inquiry unfolded, the claims about union corruption were exposed as hot air, and collusive tendering was shown to be part and parcel of the industry via the Master Builders. The MBA also misused funds allocated to group apprenticeship schemes. Claims of violence by the union were turned on their head as it was shown that several major employers were employing criminals to stand over workers. The report from the commission said that services provided by gangsters included infiltrating the workforce as sham unionists and intimidating workers and union delegates.
After bashing unions extensively in the recommendations in volume 7 of his report, Roger Gyles, QC director and shareholder in a property development group, and Royal Commissioner into his own industry, in the final two miscellaneous recommendations made some mild points about the Master Builders Association. He says "it is undesirable that the Government should have any dealings with [the MBA]; and that "advice be sought from the State Crown Solicitor as to whether there are grounds for applying to have the MBA deregistered as an industrial organisation."
Earlier Gyles had strongly asserted that "the appropriate NSW authority move for deregistration of the BWIU, in both the Federal and NSW jurisdictions".
Gyles wanted the Fahey government to establish a building industry taskforce to go hard against unions, to look at "bans, boycotts and the like".
The Commission never seriously looked at the root causes of industrial disputes in the industry. Ken Lovell, former Director of Industrial Relations for the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors said,
"My view is the biggest problem in the industry is that we expect people to get out of bed at 5.30 am, do a shit job for 11 hours in an unsafe environment for 6 days a week, and whinge when they won't do it on Sundays, and then act surprised when they try to spend as much time in the shed playing cards as they can."
So the Commission's final report had to concede that there was "no evidence of widespread or serious corruption". The recommendation of deregistration for the BWIU was solely based on the fact of the union being ready to stand up and argue for the rights of their members, against employer intimidation.
Greiner banned some government departments from dealing with the BWIU after Gyles' unsubstantiated claims were made public. Justice Maidment, of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, promptly declared the ban a breach of Greiner's own Industrial Relations Act.
After the report was handed down, Fahey, who became Premier after Greiner's resignation over - you guessed it - corruption issues, set up a Task Force, which investigated every allegation from people who had some sort of grudge against the union. Some charges were laid, but all were thrown out. Jeff Shaw disbanded the Task Force when the ALP won the 1995 elections, after wasting $30million. The benefit of it was the clawing back to the public of millions lost by the collusive tendering of construction companies.
Trawling the Harbour
Paul Kelly said "The Costigan missile, which was not launched by accident and was indeed fired by Fraser's own hand from his own flagship and intended to deplete the ALP fleet, traveled a complete circle and torpedoed its instigator."
Fraser first heard about activities around the union in 1980 and decided he wanted a full-scale inquiry as here was a union infiltrated by criminals, thus a way of bashing unions and the ALP. Frank Costigan was an experienced QC who wanted the job, after many in the judiciary had shied away, and he got plenty of resources from Fraser's Attorney General, Durack to investigate the way tax scheme promoters were using the Painters and Dockers. Costigan asked for, and got, access to confidential tax records after an interim report in 1981. Fraser and John Howard were seen as keen to get at the tax evasion industry. They didn't count on the zeal of Costigan and Counsel assisting, Douglas Meagher. Their investigations rocked the foundations of the Liberal Party.
Costigan argued in the report that the major fraud on federal revenue through the "bottom of the harbour" tax evasion schemes had been allowed to flourish because of the incompetence of the government's own advisers. Costigan argued that tax laws that existed since the early 1970s were enough to stop the schemes but they had not been tried. Substantial amounts of potential government revenue had been forgone because of inertia and incompetence.
Fraser's response to the report was a legislative one that sent fear and loathing through the Liberals and its wealthy supporters, who were of course the major abusers of tax laws. John Howard, as Treasurer, had delayed for over 12 months tax laws changes that could have stopped such activities as "one promoter [who] stripped over 1,500 companies in Victoria which had income tax liabilities in the year prior to the strip totaling $14m".
The Costigan report stopped Fraser calling an election in September 1982, and the delay would appear to have been fatal to his government. Lead on Tony Abbott.
Refernces
Audrey and Tom McDonald. Intimate Union: Sharing a revolutionary life. Annandale: Pluto Press, 1998)
Roger Vincent Gyles. Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry in New South Wales. vol. 7, Final Report, Sydney 1992.
Paul Kelly. The Hawke Ascendancy: a definitive account of its origins and climax 1975-1983. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1984
Steve Painter. Liberals' BWIU ban illegal. Green Left Weekly, no. 60 1992.
*****************
Genoa, Italy, will be a major focus of attention this weekend. A handful of men will make decisions which will affect the life chances of over a billion people, decisions about trade barriers, global poverty, the AIDS pandemic, the United Nations and - the question of what must be done about the debts of the poorest countries.
Huge demonstrations are taking place in Genoa, and we will have our own Drop the Debt March this Sunday starting from Hyde Park North at 1 pm. The procession will be in memory of the children who are dying because their countries are compelled by the international community to spend precious resources on servicing old debts, already repaid several times over, instead of basic services for their people.
Campaigners can draw some hope from the progress made on debt relief internationally and here in Australia. Nicaragua is now free of its $A7 million debt to Australia. The ALP has now adopted as part of its platform an in-principle commitment to making further moves in this direction.
Internationally, 23 countries are now benefiting from the $53 billion which has come through from the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative (HIPC) and the promises of bilateral cancellation. In Uganda primary school enrolments have doubled. In Mozambique an extra half a million children have been vaccinated against tetanus, whooping cough and diphtheria, and electricity is being provided for rural schools and hospitals. In South American Guyana, a cut of $60 million from their debt bill each year will improve health care for the poor, immunization, HIV education, teacher training, irrigation and rural wells.
The Finance Ministers of the G7 are talking up the progress made as though the glass is half full, not half empty. German sources from last weekend's Finance Ministers' meeting are reported as describing debt forgiveness so far as "an enormous reduction" and Hans Eichel stated "the forgiveness initiative is in motion."
From Jubilee's perspective, he is making out the glass as half full when there is only a thimble of water in the glass. We have been lobbying for cancellation of $380 billion owed by the 52 poorest countries. This is actually not a large amount of money for the world's largest economies, yet it is sucking scarce resources from the poorest economies out of their health and education budgets. It means shortages of basic necessities like clean water and sanitation for millions.
Yet the G7 Finance Ministers have variously pointed out that cost is an issue, that they don't really have the money to finance more debt relief (!) Jubilee's claim that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank could cancel 100% of debts owed to them "would increase the cost of the HIPC program substantially" (US Treasury), and the UK Treasury is stating that it is not clear that the International Institutions "could release the substantial additional resources required."
Instead, they say it is over to poor countries to show "good governance" "for their own good". This is code for: poor countries having to follow structural adjustment policies - cutbacks in services, trade liberalisation and privatisation policies - which in fact hurt the poor, but suit the interests of the major shareholders of the IMF and World Bank. At the same time it is over to poor country governments to tackle poverty.
Nonetheless the outcomes of the summit are not a foregone conclusion. The host country, Italy, has one of the most progressive stances on debt cancellation, having passed legislation favouring 66 of the poorest countries and moving well beyond the constraints of HIPC. It is a hopeful sign that the first meeting of the weekend will be with six government leaders from the world's poorest countries. We watch with interest.
In the meantime it is our own Australian Government which has been among the most sluggish of creditors to offer any kind of debt cancellation. Jubilee is calling for the debts of Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Vietnam and Ethiopia to be written off, a total of $A500 million. For us, to stop collecting form these countries would have a negligible effect on us. It's a whole lot less than what Australians spend on chocolate and sweets in a year and it would be spread over a number of years.
Of course, we would need to be satisfied that the money released would be used for the poor. Where there is reason to believe that it would not, Jubilee suggests the setting up of trust funds for poverty reduction in the debtor countries concerned.
In any case, whatever the events on the international stage, let's get moving!
by Peter Murphy
People Power |
***********
The chair of the Australian Republican Movement, Greg Barns, told a 400-strong anti-corporate globalisation conference in Sydney today that if companies and capital were allowed to move around the world, then people should also be allowed to do so.
"We are rightfully attracting international opprobrium for our disgraceful treatment of the 5000 or so asylum seekers who we mandatorily detain in a manner befitting an authoritarian or totalitarian regime of the Eastern bloc or South America. Why should we not allow people to move around the globe in search of better life just as we allow companies and capital to do so? Is it fair that we sit on enormous resources, physical, cultural, social and economic but put up the 'no go' sign for those who seek to share in this experience. Where is the justice in that?" he asked.
Greg Barns won a warm round of applause for that statement, but his claim that tariffs for the car, textile, clothing and footwear industries should be removed, drew sharp opposition. Barns represented the most pro-market sentiment among the conference speakers, but he agreed with the majority about the lack of morality in the corporate ethos, and the need for government to act firmly to defend fairness and social cohesion
The Now We the People Conference which met at Newtown Theatre and Newtown High School in Sydney this weekend endorsed 39 points for an alternative to economic rationalism and corporate globalisation. Conference spokesperson Peter Murphy said that the privatisation, deregulation and trade liberalisation in Australia had been driven by global corporations for the last 15 years for the benefit of a few.
"Globalisation has resulted in growing insecurity and poverty for the many and has sharpened divisions in our society. This weekend's conference explored the need for Australia and the world to take a new direction based on the values of cooperation, inclusiveness, ecological sustainability, equality, social justice and fairness to future generations.
"The 400 people who attended the conference committed themselves to make this a major issue in the coming federal election and beyond. Now We the People will organise networks of like-minded people across urban, rural and regional Australia, with the support of local government wherever possible," he said.
"We will oppose those who advocate economic rationalism, corporate globalisation and free trade not fair trade," he said.
Mr. Murphy said that the conference participants included members of the Greens, Democrats, Australian Labor Party, churches and the trade union, women's, environmental, student, and migrant communities.
Christine Milne, of the Australian Greens, told a plenary session that globalisation was not inevitable. "Globalisation is a political project which can be responded to politically. Corporatisation might be global but it is being implemented by national governments. Part of the challenge is to get young activists from the S11 and M1 protests organized around a clear positive agenda with activists of all ages," she said.
John Maitland the National Secretary of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union spoke in support of fair trade and not leaving it to the free market. He told the conference that workers and the community need to get together to force global corporations to sign enforceable agreements to protect the environment, respect labour standards and human rights.
"There is tremendous potential to use workers capital (e.g. in industry superannuation funds) to intervene to push for industry and social development which benefits workers and their communities," he said.
THERE ARE BETTER WAYS THAN ECONOMIC RATIONALISM
NOW WE THE PEOPLE SAY THAT
� the economic rationalist agenda for Australia, driven by global corporations for the last 15 years, benefits the few at the cost of growing insecurity and poverty for the many and sharpens divisions in our society;
� Australia and the world urgently need a new direction based on values of cooperation, inclusiveness, ecological sustainability, equality, social justice, and fairness to future generations;
� we need new policies, a new philosophy and new vision based on these values which will create a viable future for us all and for the planet.
In our broad diversity, we are determined to act together
� to assert a new direction based on values of cooperation, inclusiveness, ecological sustainability and equality, and to oppose economic rationalism, global free trade, deregulation, privatisation and outsourcing, racism and ecological destruction;
� to raise these issues in the coming Federal Election to make them a priority in the election debate, and subsequently;
� to support and vote for candidates and parties that uphold these values, and to oppose those who advocate economic rationalism and corporate globalisation.
A NEW DIRECTION FOR AUSTRALIA
Our discussions show that priorites for confronting global corporate power include:
� achievement of a just and genuine settlement between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians, through an open negotiation process;
� full employment, by creating quality jobs and quality public services in public health, public education, aged care, child care, housing, transport, welfare services, and the arts, and encouraging investment in ecologically sustainable manufacturing and agriculture; and by negotiated measures to share work more fairly, and to retrain the unemployed.
� ratification of the the Kyoto Protocol on Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, meeting and surpassing its inadequate target for Australia, and energetically supporting higher targets;
� achieving women's right to equal opportunity and active participation in democratic processes, leadership and decision-making in all aspects of public and private life;
� restoration of the rights of workers to organise into trade unions, to bargain collectively with employers on an industry basis, with recourse to the Industrial Relations Commission, and to protect the right to strike; and support for greater democracy in trade unions;
� promoting a just work environment by reasserting the use of industrial awards to advance employment equity, through community wage increases, equitable valuation of work, protection and portability of workers entitlements, a 35-hour week, paid parental leave, regulation of casual work, family-friendly work practices and fair rostering / shift work practices;
� replacing the GST with a fair tax system where business and the wealthy pay their share, to raise adequate revenue for national social and environmental goals, including provision of an adequate income for all through job creation, quality public services, and higher welfare payments;
� vigorous support for an international tax on foreign currency transactions - the Tobin Tax - to restrain financial speculation;
� insistence on a new set of global trade and investment rules aimed at fair trade, which give priority to human rights, the environment and diversity of culture, and opposition to any new World Trade Organisation negotiations or "free trade agreements" until this is achieved;
� cancellation of the debt owed to Australia by poor countries;
� a legislated Charter of Community Obligation for the banking system, and creation of a publicly owned bank to ensure fair banking services for all Australians; explore the use of the Reserve Bank and superanuation funds to finance ecologically sustainable public infrastructure;
� creating a major industrial capacity in renewable energy systems (excluding use of old growth forests) and sustainable transport systems; closing the uranium mining and export industry, and the Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor; and banning port visits by nuclear-armed and powered ships. Banning imports of any nuclear waste and creating a final repository of existing Australian domestic nuclear waste in Australia;
� promoting a higher quality standard of living through reduced material consumption and improved patterns of life;
� forging an independent, non-nuclear foreign policy promoting democracy, genuine development and peace in the Asia-Pacific region and globally; opposition to the US National Missile Defence Program, and all programs for weapons of mass destruction;
� investing in a massive program to bioremediate the natural environment, including the Murray-Darling Basin, to halt salination and desertification, especially by reafforestation and sustainable water use, and taxing environmental damage;
� reinstating full welfare support to migrants, respecting the human right to family reunion for migrants, abolishing mandatory detention and treating all asylum seekers with full human dignity, and reaffirming the multicultural character of Australian society;
� a strong, free and secular public education system whose funding and support is the primary responsibility of both State and Federal governments. Public schools, public universities and publicly-provided vocational education and training including TAFE must be funded at a level where they can provide excellence and equity to all Australians. Public education is integral to democracy and social justice and should emphasise inclusive values, environmental sustainability, equity, creative thinking, and the capacity to assess information and make considered decisions;
� restoring and sustaining a high quality public health system and ending subsidies to private health insurance;
� adequately funding a technically advanced ABC and SBS, fully staffed with secure jobs, with the ABC's independence secured by Parliament appointing its Board; a program of funds for community-based and independent electronic and print media, to reduce concentration of private ownership of media in Australia; and greater regulation of advertising directed at children;
� ensuring fair access to justice through adequate legal aid funding and community legal centres, rejection of mandatory sentencing, and the operation of prisons for profit;
� initiating an open, inclusive Constitutional Review to consider a Bill of Rights and an Australian Republic, on which the people will ultimately vote in a constitutional referendum;
� celebrating the contribution made to our society by children, young people, the elderly, people with disabilities, and people of alternate sexual orientations, and supporting their struggles for equal access to resources to ensure that participation in the social, political and economic life of our community is open to all;
� recognition and remuneration for the unpaid work now performed in carer relationships;
� promotion of local and small community autonomy and self-reliance, and greater participation by people in decision-making at local, state and national levels;
� developing the parliamentary system to ensure parliaments oversee the Executive, that all votes are equal, and that election results reflect voters intentions.
� the Australian government meeting its current human rights and international treaty obligations, and ensuring maximum access to human rights structures and processes, including the International Labour Organisation.
We participants at the 2001 Now We the People conference, in all our diversity, agree on the need to:
� reinvigorate democracy and public debate, to work at all levels of society to change thinking, and to map out practical programs for Australian society for the first decade of the new century, to turn from the destructive path we are now on.
We commit ourselves to:
� the building of networks of discussion and action across urban, rural and regional Australia, among individuals, organisations, communities and ethical businesses who share this vision
� cooperation in the campaigns needed to apply the values of cooperation, inclusiveness, ecological sustainability, equality, and fairness to future generations, in political, economic and social life;
� support for alliances of the labour and other social movements to campaign at the local and international level against economic rationalism and corporate globalisation;
� research, discussions and publications to address this challenge;
� encourage contributions to these tasks from people in every strata of society
� organise seminars and meetings in towns and cities across Australia, auspiced and supported where possible by Local Councils, leading up to our next national conference in 2003.
Adopted by acclamation at the final plenary, Now We The People Conference, Newtown, Sydney, July 15, 2001
by The Chaser
The Chaser |
Marsden yesterday described his defamation action against Channel 7 as "grossly defamatory." He said his reputation had been completely shattered by his decision to go to court.
"No one's done more to tarnish my name than I have," said the former Law Society Chairman. "My reputation was pretty much fine until my litigious attempts to restore it."
The lawyer said he should have realised that nobody ever watched Witness, and that nobody was remotely aware of its allegations until he challenged them in court.
He said he had blatantly defamed himself by discussing the tawdry details of his homosexual promiscuity, his marijuana addiction and his penchant for donkeys.
An aggrieved Mr Marsden yesterday served himself with a writ, seeking damages in excess of $1 million dollars as well as his own costs. He's also seeking compensation from himself for the millions of dollars he squandered on the unnecessary and humiliating trial.
In the writ he also said that he hoped he now knew better than to ever serve a writ again.
Big Brother is watching what? |
****************
A friend of mine of who works in TV has always said to me, "If you put a camera in someone's face they will always act and play up to the camera. They will do things they would normally never do if it wasn't for the camera. People love to be on TV". And yet again these wise words are so apt for BB.
For a show that started out so slow Big Brother developed a momentum beyond what reality TV junkies could have hoped for. Sure you didn't have to watch every show and at worst you made sure you were home Thursday night for BB uncut and Sunday for the eviction, but how many times did we come home only to sneak the TV on to see who was feeding the chooks.
So was the show a revealing insight into the future where we will have the merging of a variety of communication of communication mediums, electronic and print media, the internet and TV, providing a constant stream of cross promotions. Obviously the cross promotion and placement of products was an immensely successful strategy with companies like Primus gaining a 250% increase in their sales while Pizza Hut, who concentrated their entire advertising budget into BB, received a 15% increase in product sales. Or was it an arm chair participation sport that allowed us to not only to be stimulated by the usual information forums but provided us with the opportunity of being allowed to believe we were exercising some control over a realm that we usually only passively interact with? Or was it just a great show that had people we liked, disliked and were provided with the opportunity to vent our spleen and displeasure at those we thought should never have been there. Why let go when the anger will drive you on?
One of the most interesting things throughout the series that has become more apparent since its conclusion, has been the ability of the housemates to realise they were more than just part of a TV game show. That is, many saw themselves as marketable products in which the show would lay the groundwork for the spoils upon eviction. Surely the best examples of this are Johnnie, Jemma, Peter and to a lesser extent Blair. These media savvy participants, especially Jemma who was in the UK at the time BB was being shown there, have no doubt learnt from shows such as Survivor that the aim is to remain in the game for as long as possible in order to increase one's marketable capacity. If this is not so why then are so many of the participants so gracious in defeat and not be too disparaging about other contestants? That is, unless there was a universal commitment from all housemates to single a person out Anita (who probably could have won if she had been a mute). Got to love the schoolyard mentality even in the world of BB.
The strength of the program in many respects is part science and part luck. The selection process provided the basis for a range of personalities that will engage the widest cross-section of viewers. The luck is obviously whether or not they will be able to both shine as individual personalities in a broader group without being a bunch of wet blankets who bore the audience to tears. Lisa, nice girl but gee wiz. Surely no one would have predicted the success of Sara Marie and undoubtably she was slotted as one of the first to go as she was nominated more times than any other housemate. But the longer she survived the more she turned people around and the stronger her vote became in relation to remaining in the house. To her credit, I think she was one of the first to develop some sort of a game plan in relation to giving the audience what they wanted from her and so she served it up as best she could.
It was quite obvious that the producers had identified Andy to be responsible for the audience titillation, but Sara Marie surprised all. In relation to Andy the Dominatrix, for mine she was the weakest link within the selection process and what was obviously perceived to be one of the contestants they thought would go much further than she did. The producers no doubt worked themselves up into a lather with the prospect of kinky nudity on call, or even when they weren't calling for it. However, the keen eye of the audience saw it for what it was, contrived cynical titillation and not a serious attempt of professional reality TV management. The other interesting point to mention is the inability of the big boofy boys, who just weren't sure what they were supposed to do in relation to having a living male fantasy right before them, produced a flaccid inability to interact with Andy in anything but a superficial and contrived "stand back we should be doing something though I don't know what exactly" approach. Gordon attempted to take up the challenge but even Donkey Boy was just not able to step up other than to pretend to be going for it. But when the crunch time came he didn't. This was the most cynical and weakest part of the show.
The other interesting aspect of BB was the way in which the producers developed the characters and maintained their image within the house. For example, Johnnie was portrayed as the manipulative contestant which the audience accepted, yet the housemates felt he was a nice guy and a "good bloke" which is the perception that seems to have gain credence once he left the house. Similarly, Jemma who always showered in her underwear was in fact, caught on camera partially nude before a shower, yet this incident that never made it to TV. Despite this manipulation of character images the viewer was free to melt into the world of what they felt was the reality of the house.
Audiences unquestionably love to escape into other peoples' lives so long as they appear to be more interesting than their own. We have our favourites and the ones we love to hate and what BB allowed us to do was not only compare these people to ourselves and what we would have done but it also allowed us to back "our" winner and take vengeance on those who deserve to go. The audience became one with the program and people felt a great affinity for people they have never met nor probably will never meet. Their humanness was developed and explored by the being able to meet their families and friends. This ensured the characters were more than just one-dimensional game pieces. This drew us in to a point where people felt they had to defend specific competitors. In the case of Sara Marie she became more than a contestant, she became someone we had to defend. I was regaled in my living room with cries of "why should she go, Blair is a little shit who has all the teenage girls voting for him. Give me the phone I'm going to vote for Sara Marie". This came from an individual who initially thought the show was ridiculous but inevitably was drawn in and discovered that she was able to recall all the days' activities from that day in the house. Build it and they shall come!
BB was a success and it was more than a ratings winner it was quality reality TV. Rather than being dumped to some obscure 11:00 pm time slot, as is the case with most things that Channel 10 develop, it remained strong and delivered us what we wanted real (although slightly manipulated) reality TV. How many more sleeps to Survivor 3 or BB Celebrity?
Gary Kennedy |
***********
On Friday the 13th of July Newcastle witnessed an out-pouring of rage at Peter Reith the ex-minister for Industrial Relations. This is now being used to justify a political assault on the trade union movement.
The images of protestors throwing food and lashing out at Senator Tierney's car in which Peter Reith was travelling are now being said to have convinced the federal Cabinet to call a Royal Commission into the Building Industry.
A peaceful assembly turned ugly within 30 seconds and while the Union movement does not condone or encourage violence an explanation of sorts is required.
The visit by Peter Reith was not made public and in fact the NSW Police were not given any prior warning that Reith would be in town. This was confirmed when a single local officer came to the protest site and enquired as to what was going on
This police officer was then very quickly whisked inside the ADI site by a person who was identified as a Security Officer with the Reith entourage.
There was a definite 20-25 minute lapse before vehicles thought to contain Peter Reith approached the front gate of the ADI complex. The crowd was focussed on these vehicles and most of the Union officials present were at the front gate to control the situation.
Senator Tierney's car then appeared from a side entrance and accelerated down the road which runs parallel to the front entrance. Numerous workers were eating sandwiches, pies etc which had just been purchased from a mobile sandwich van that turns up lunch time every day.
One protester stood with his back to the vehicle and was hit in the back of the legs by Senator Tierney's vehicle. It was moving very slowly but enough to knock him off balance and he rolled onto the bonnet of the vehicle.
The crowd eating lunch immediately started throwing food at the vehicle but when the majority of the protesters turned around it appeared that a protester had been hit by the vehicle and they reacted immediately.
Senator Tierney's vehicle stopped momentarily and then slowly moved forward before accelerating through the rest of the crowd and on down the road.
The original two vehicles now proceeded out of the front gate of ADI and unfortunately a couple of people struck out at those vehicles as well causing some minor damage.
I immediately grabbed the microphone and dispersed the crowd and was then confronted by the assembled media.
The protest was an ad hoc affair organised through e-mails and mobile phones and was not the responsibility of any of the Unions that were present, nor the Newcastle Trades Hall.
The Union officials realised that the crowd were a bit pumped up and that is why we were all at the front of the crowd and not where the incident finally occurred
The violence was not pre-planned and exploded after what appeared to the crowd to be a protester being run into by Senator Tierney's vehicle
The NSW Police confirmed that they were not notified and Reich's security person did not attempt to seek NSW Police assistance despite their only being one entrance to ADI and a single street by which to enter and leave. (NOT a NSW Police problem and no blame attached to them)
All of the Unions present have condemned the violence but are all of the same opinion that this visit was either the worst case of a security stuff up, or an intentional provocation of the crowd for the media.
Despite the allegation that this was an organised attack on Reith by the CFMEU the ad hoc nature of the protest meant there were minimal numbers of CFMEU members present
The Unions present were MUA, CFMEU, AMWU and some other members from other Unions but not in great numbers and the total present was in the order of 150
The Newcastle Trades Hall Council will ensure at all future rallies/protests that if they are not sponsored and controlled by an individual Union we will step in and take control.
Shirtfront |
****************
Recently I've had occasion to hang around a few clubs and see first hand the extent of the influence of Big-Business in footy.
The players, the administrators and other high-profile people at clubs are always publicly cheerful about the excess of extra duties they now have to perform in order to court the corporates. Privately, I've heard quite a bit of murmuring and muttering about the way this affects the day-to-day running of the club.
Consider the lot of one property steward - let's call him Bob. Bob's one of those club stalwarts who ensures that the footballers have water, jumpers, shorts, boots, jockstraps, et cetera delivered on time for training and for matches. He and his dedicated team of volunteers lug huge baskets of stuff from one venue to another before and after every match. Once Bob would have been a veritable fund of info about goings-on around the club.
These days, like everyone else at the club, he's instructed to keep his mouth shut. If you were doing a light-hearted story about the lot of a property steward, and wanted to convey a bit of spontaneity, forget it. These days Bob can't allow you to photograph him until he's donned a sponsor's T-shirt and cap. He'll quietly tell you it's a wank, but to refuse to do it would be risking losing his job.
Recently Bob ran through an inventory of football gear for my benefit. The players have eleven different pairs of shorts, all with a different logo, and twelve different jumpers. What they wear depends on which venue they're playing at, and which sponsor appears on what item of apparel. Let Acme find out that they appeared on the shorts when, that week, they should have been on the front of the jumper, and all hell would break loose.
Calls to the President from the highest level, who calls the club CEO, who storms down to the bowels of the stadium, where poor old Bob is reminded in no uncertain terms how much sponsorship money his negligence will cost the club.
Fortunately, Bob's indispensable, but then the Social Security queues are full of indispensable people.
Neale Towart |
Wage Trends
Average annual wage increases for certified enterprise agreements in the March quarter was 3.7%, down from 4.2% from the previous quarter.
The margin between union and non-union collective agreements was extended to 0.7% (in favour of union agreements).
The average annual increase in wages in AWAs was 2.4%, well down on certified agreements. AWAs in the private sector are delivering an increase of 2.1%, whilst in the public sector the rise is 2.9%. Enterprise agreements in the private sector deliver a higher increase than in the public sector (4% to 3.4%)
Wage Dispersion
The range of average annual increases was between 3.1% in the recreational and personal services area to 4.5% in construction. Wholesale and retail trade increase was 3.4%, metal manufacturing 4.2%, community services 3.2%, transport and storage was 3.7%.
Content of High and Low Wage AWAs
Hours of work flexibility continues to dominate the terms of AWAs. Expanding ordinary working time is the key area, thus reducing the costs of working outside "normal" hours.
Weekly working hours are higher under AWAs than under other agreement types, and the longer hours usually do not include penalty rates.
Wage increases are based on individual performance.
Loaded pay rates supposedly absorbing allowances and penalty rates. No other forms of direct compensation for non payment of penalty rates are seen in employment conditions set out in low wage AWAs.
Other provisions such as consultation, training, OHS, employee representation and teamwork are not seen in AWAs.
(ADAM Report; no. 29 ACIRRT; June 2001)
Innovative Clauses: flexibility, leave, family-friendly, cultural recognition, training, communications and consultation, union dues
- Workplace Flexibility: ACIRRT highlights some agreement clauses that increase workplace flexibility without disadvantaging employees. In the food manufacturing industry, a multi-skilling clause recognises the advantages of multi-skilling and pays workers an additional loading in recognition of the benefits to the company from the skills gained. Also in this industry a shutdown leave bank is established for employees to cater for fluctuations in business demand and seasonal cycles.
- Leave Arrangements: Employers are keen to have innovative leave clauses to combat absenteeism and reduce costs. In the insurance industry and in the agriculture industry clauses have been introduced that allow the taking of unused sick leave as additional holiday time. In the public sector additional time off is provided in lieu of annual leave loading. In the pharmaceutical industry an agreement allowed casual employees the opportunity to accrue long service leave on a full-time basis.
- Family-friendly provisions: In the insurance industry flexible parental leave and childcare leave arrangements have been introduced and another agreement provides for reimbursement for additional costs of care incurred because of extra working hours. In the hospitality industry an agreement requires rosters to allow for working mothers to organise family commitments, such as school drop offs.
- Cultural Recognition: In the vehicle industry an agreement shows employers and employees coming up with an excellent arrangement to suit employee needs and beliefs, without disrupting employer requirements for production on Sundays. In the community services area, an agreement allows for the substitution of another day for a prescribed public holiday.
- Training: An insurance industry agreement shows a real commitment to ensuring employees have the necessary skills required under a new collective agreement, with the union and the company being involved in the education and training process.
- Communications and Consultation: This is an area when a lot of lip service is often paid without real action. A finance sector agreement shows a commitment to improving communication between management and employees to increase employee knowledge of company products and improve information sharing. In food manufacturing the agreement uses the workplace consultative committee to make decisions in relation to redundancies.
- Union dues: In the electricity industry an agreement sets out that employees who benefit from the wages contained in the agreement who are not union members will have an $8 service fee deducted from their wages.
(ADAM Report; no. 29, ACIRRT June 2001)
Globalization, union style by Werner Thoennessen
The recent merger of five German unions has seen the creation of a 3 million member body, VERDI (Union of Service trades Unions)
The unions are the public services, transport and communications union, the union of German white collar workers, the union of commerce, banking and insurance personnel, the postal trades union and the union of media staffs.
The major goal of the new body is attract new members to make up for losses over the past few years. Several other union amalgamations have occurred this year in Germany, including IG Construction - and IG Chemicals, Paper and Ceramics and TG Wood and TG Textiles have been absorbed by IG Metals. Also there has been more project oriented cooperation between independent unions.
(World of Work; ILO no. 39, 2001)
Labour Accord between Union Network International and Telef�nica
An agreement on a Code of Conduct between Spanish telecommunication multinational Telef�nica and Union Network International (UNI) has been praised as a milestone in industrial relations by ILO Director Genera-Juan Somavia.
The Code covers labour rights for 120,000 workers around the globwe employed by Telef�nica, who are represented by 18 unions affiliated to UNI.
UNI was formed in January 2000 and groups togwther 15.5 million skills and services members of over 800 unions.
Union officials say that this is the first of a series of planned global accords with multinational corporations based on ILO Conventions and Recommendations. 20 of these are covered by the Code.
(World of Work; ILO no. 39, 2001)
Organisation Man by David Moberg
John Wilhelm has been working for 30 years to successfully transform the hidebound and declining Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE) in the USA.
Nation magazine profiles his efforts in organising a low wage sector where many workers are from non-English speaking backgrounds and the employers take advantage whenever they can. Tactics include important alliances with larger unions and community and student groups.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010716&s=moberg
Meeting the Challenges in Manufacturing by James B. Parks
Employees at the International Special Chemical (ISP) plant in Calvert City, Ky have developed a successful strategy to deal with the threats globalisation poses to jobs in their industry in the USA. New partnerships between the employees and the company has seen employees have a say in almost all aspects of production in the plant. The company outsourced over $4m worth of work in 1998 and that figure has dropped under $1m today. Machinists Local 1720 represents the 400 workers in the plant.
This at a time when over 470,000 manufacturing jobs in the US have been lost so far in 2001. Every state has lost jobs since the implementation of NAFTA, with manufacturing based states suffering the most.
(America@work July 2001)
Pre-natal Leave for Super Workers
A major funds manager has introduced the equivalent of three days pre-natal leave for their employees, in what is an emerging trend in that industry.
The 2001 Industry Administration Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement offers staff a bank of 24 hours to "draw" from to attend medical appointments in the lead up to giving birth.
According to Roger Lowery, an FSU industrial officer, the clause is part of an industry wide trend towards recognising the requirements of pregnant employees.
"Formal pre-natal leave is something of a novelty in most areas, so in a typically gender-biased industry like superannuation, it is very encouraging to see it catch on".
http://www.workplaceexpress.com.au
****************
We at Workers Online have long been fans of the K-Man, as he scorched across the political landscape with all the finesse, grace and focus of his sitcom namesake. From his early stand-up days at the Evatt Foundation railing against power privatisation, to his sojourn to Brisbane to set up a think-tank in partnership with News Ltd and embrace the Third Way (the political equivalent of a road trip to LA for a guest spot on Murphy Brown), Botsman has proven that a PhD in venereal disease need be no barrier to being an expert on nothing.
And now he's taken up his current gig carrying the mantle of Gough, at the newly formed Whitlam Institute, look forward to Kramer becoming an expert in all things Labor.
He stepped up to the plate on ABC Radio this week - with a performance that reminded me of that episode where Elaine decides she needs some new friends. The premise of the interview was that trade unions are out of control - linking such disparate issues as the WorkCover conflict in NSW, allegations and a picket at Newcastle ship year. The line that the mainstream media is trying to get out is that these are all evidence of the union movement being out of control.
Now, a supporter of the trade union movement could challenge this critique in a range of informed and enlightened ways. Such as (i) the workers compensation conflagration followed profound mismanagement by the responsible Minister (ii) the Victorian trade union officials are openly hostile to the ALP and at odds with much of the mainstream trade union movement (iii) that the footage of the Reith incident was sparked by the Minister's own mishandling of the affair, and his failure to liaise with police before the event and finally that (iv) a building industry Royal Commission is a cynical politically exercise which, if history is any gauge, will bring to light evidence of employer corruption.
Instead Kramer accepted the underlying precept of the interview, opining that with a falling membership base trade unions no longer represented then interests of mainstream Australia. If this line were coming from Piers Akerman, you could accept it. But Kramer is meant to be the holder of the Labor-sit flame- even if he's hanging out with the Tony Blair fan club these days. .
Where he was coming from became more apparent, however, as the interview continued. The line emerged that Kramer believes that Labor needs to distil the influence of trade unions; replacing them with high level think-tanks - like surprise, surprise, the one's that he runs. That's right, instead of a working class base, the ALP should pay pointy-heads like Kramer to write its policy - and present it in easy to digest mind-maps. I'm still waiting for the canned laughter to kick in.
But that's not all! The old Left and Right faction should be thrown out along with the unions. Instead new groupings should emerge around people like - Barry Jones! Maybe even the K-man himself! Now that would be some party! The political equivalent of the recycled tonight show set that Kramer finds in the alley and turns into his lounge suite. The cameras are on but no-one is watching.
We love thought and we love think-tanks and we wish the Whitlam Institute well. But to suggest that it can replace a working class base is the work of a comic genius. Kramer, you've done it again! Giddee-up!
© 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/103/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 |