|
Issue No. 139 | 07 June 2002 |
With Prejudice
Interview: Class Action Safety: A Mother's Tale Unions: The Hottest Seat in Town International: Defensive Enterprise Economics: A Super Deal? History: A Radical Life Media: Cross Purposes Review: When the Force Is Unconscious Poetry: Wouldn't It Be Loverly
Grieving Mum Turns Cole Around Hamberger Grilled Over AWA Scam Government Shrugs Off Death Sentence Charge Action To Pay Foreign Crew Aussie Wages Birds Get More Protection Than Workers Budget Delivers - But Not For DOCS Statewide Ban On Grain Loading Howard Soft On Organised Crime? UN Honours Building Union Drugs Program Award-Winning Poet Wins Right To Write Mahathir Told to Release Labour Activisits Horta Backs Western Sahara Independence
The Soapbox The Locker Room Bosswatch Week in Review
Robbo's Rave Latham Ad Nauseum Our Home Is Girt By Wire Hands Off Hooligans!
Labor Council of NSW |
Letters to the Editor Robbo's Rave
Both your Issue 138 editorial and John Robertson's soapbox article made some very valid contributions to the debate surrounding the future partnership between the Trade Union movement and the Labor Party. As both a committed trade unionist and ALP branch member I can see some fairly compelling arguments on both sides. In my view the most important thing for the ALP to concentrate on should be getting on with the business of winning elections, this being the only way we can hope to make a real difference in Australia - by harnessing the power of the state. To this end, it is imperative that the debate over the 60/40 rule be resolved in one way or another in a decisive manner, and soon. I personally do not have a firm opinion either way and could be swayed by a good argument, but I do believe that by agonising over this issue in a drawn out and very public fashion, all we are doing is giving our opponents a stick to beat us with. The general public that we need to engage with are not interested in the 60/40 rule, and a quick resolution of the debate would enable both the party and the union movement to get on with the job of producing better and fairer solutions to today's problems. John Robertson made some interesting points about a possible role for unions in the preselection process. It would be important if any such move were to be made to ensure that the unions were represented at the local level, rather than through a central union panel of some sort. There is always disquiet, if not open revolt, from branch members about "candidates being imposed from head office" and there is a danger that any move such as this could be seen in that way. Furthermore, individuals within the party who may make excellent candidates but do not have union connections may feel "on the outer" in such a process and decide it would not be worthwhile to stand - and we may therefore be depriving ourselves in this way. The questions of how unions could be represented at a local level is a difficult one and one that I will admit I do not have an answer to. Possibly a plebiscite of local union delegates and officials could become part of the process, although this could leave the ALP open to negative feelings from its branch members who could feel that their say is now a less important one. This issue of "relevance deprivation" of local ALP branch members should not be taken lightly in an age where it could reasonably be said the party already does not have enough members to run campaigns and have debates as well as it could. There is, however, no question that unions should not be made to take a "back seat" within the Labor Party. To this end, the consultative process with local unionists by MPs as described in the Wran report is an excellent idea and should attract wide support on our side of the political divide. In Solidarity, Marco Spaccavento
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|