|
Issue No. 129 | 22 March 2002 |
Not So Happy Campers
Interview: Pulling the Pin International: At the Crossroads Unions: A Case Of Lost Identity History: Rocking the Foundations Industrial: Rocky Road Economics: Cracking a Coldie Poetry: The Right Was Wrong Satire: Heffernan�s Evidence Conclusive: Proves He's An Idiot Review: Upstairs, Downstairs
Giant Rat Fights Cole Commission Queue Jumper Abbott In Cash Grab Rabbit Fence Leads Reconciliation to Classroom Council Takes Up Discrimination Challenge Power Workers To Decide Own Fate Fee Pressure Builds on Beattie Nobel Committee 'Subordinates' Union Rights Columbians Level Death Charges Call To Blockade Burmese Junta
The Soapbox The Locker Room Postcard Cole-Watch Week in Review
Letter to Howard #2 Letter to Howard #3 Jump Before You're Pushed
Labor Council of NSW |
Cole-Watch Go West
RC investigators to remain in WA "for as long as is necessary" The Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry opened its four weeks of hearings in Perth this week. But Counsel Assisting Mr Agius said the Commission envisaged visiting WA on at least two more occasions and its investigators would remain in the State, conducting their activities "overtly and covertly .... for as long as is necessary". Same messages with some new spin The range of issues to be examined in the Perth hearings is not dissimilar from those already heard in other States. But there are a number of new points of interest. For example, the Commission is looking at the practice of fixed Rostered Days Off (RDOs) to see if there is "room for modification of this practice so as to permit an efficient rotation or splitting of rostered days off". Workers might be wondering if the Commission will consider that RDOs have to be fixed in the construction industry to ensure that they are allowed to take the day off. The Commission will not only investigate whether the use of 'No Ticket No Start' banners on CBD construction sites in Perth, is "a code for compulsory unionism"; but also "does it stem from a desire to advance the interests of union members, or is it more a weapon in a struggle for power within the union movement?" Safety being used as a "bargaining chip or weapon on construction sites" will come up again, according to Mr Agius. But the Perth hearings are also investigating the role of the shop steward on construction sites. That led to the following exchange: Mr Agius: Can you think of what it is that gives you the authority to ask somebody, when they come on a site, whether they are a member of the union? Fox: Well, I believe it's part of my job as a shop steward. Agius: But where is the authority that permits you to do it? Fox: No-one has ever told me that it is illegal to ask someone whether they are in the union or not. Agius: Do you ask somebody what their politics are when you are doing this process? Fox: Sometimes. Agius: As a matter of course? Fox: As a matter of a conversation. The majority of people who come on to these sites, I've been around for a while and I know most of them. Agius: Do you ask them what their religion is? Fox: No. [Tr p4183] EBAs and anti-competitive behaviour Counsel Assisting Agius has indicated that the Perth hearings will continue the line of argument put in Queensland and Tasmania, that major builders have been complicit with unions to compel subcontractors to sign Enterprise Bargaining Agreements. But the Perth hearings are taking the anti-competitive arguments further: Mr Commissioner, you will hear evidence that major builders in Perth have enforced a policy of no EBA with the union, no tender, the practical effect of which is not just to drive up the cost of construction, with the flow-on effects for the community at large, such as higher rents, inflation and the presentation of Perth as a less attractive place for investment involving the building and construction industry, but to drive out competitors and create a closed shop for some builders. Cole RC pitches for women? The Perth hearings will also investigate whether women are being prevented from joining the industry because "the lack of appropriate part-time employment provisions in awards and restrictive casual employment clauses in awards". The Commission is not asking why builders are not employing more women workers. The target of this exercise, according to Mr Agius' opening, is purely the CFMEU: "does the CFMEU oppose the expansion of part-time employment in the industry and, if so, is this discriminatory against women and inconsistent with the union movement's stated commitment to principles of equal opportunity ....". This approach fits neatly with the Federal Government-backed push by construction employers to get part-time and extended casual provisions into the ACT and National Building and Construction Awards. Construction has always been a casual industry and workers have been more concerned to gain protection from abuses of the daily hire system than with creating opportunities for more job insecurity. When virtually all of the 950,000 new jobs created over the past 10 years have been either part-time or casual, few could doubt that this push for part-time work in construction is more about reducing minimum working hours and cost cutting than anything else.
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|