|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 148 | 16 August 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peak Performance
Interview: Labor Law Unions: Critical Conditions Bad Boss: Shifting The Load History: Peeking Out Safety: Flying High Corporate: Salaries High, Performance Low International: War on the US Wharves Review: And the Signs Said... Poetry: Tony Don't Preach Satire: Latham Dumps Rodney Rude as Speech Writer
Politics The Soapbox The Locker Room Bosswatch Human Rights
 Miranda's Not Fair on OutworkersAnother Capitalist Party?Justice For All?Kill the Photos!Right Wing Lackies
|
|
|
Politics Colour By Numbers
************* There is no doubt that the Labor Party needs to modernise. The political wing of the labour movement has been captured by a generation of careerists more interested in attaining power than developing good policy. Branches have become playthings for factional warlords who work in unholy alliance to prop each other up. And the rank and file are consistently disappointed by policies that seem more focused on meeting the whims of the focus groups, financial markets and conservative media, rather than articulating a Labor vision in which they can take pride. None of these problems are addressed by reducing the trade union vote on the floor of State Conference. Yet at the end of the day it is trade union influence that is portrayed as the thing holding back the Party; not insipid policies, not clumsy politics, not drab candidates. To put the whole debate in some sort of context, these facts need to be considered: - unions are not declining - in the past two years the number of members have actually increased. - unions are not 'on the nose' - Labor Council polling shows that 86 per cent of the Australian public support unions - way above the standing of any political party. - unions are not out of touch with their constituency - surviving in the modern workplace environment means establishing a real connection with working people; and four years into our modernisation agenda the results are starting to show. - unions are not an interest group - they are a movement with nearly two million members, far more than any other political party, social or community group. Ignorance of these basic truths drives the Howard Government's anti-union rhetoric. But as Hawke and Wran state in their report, the union movement had nothing to do with Kim Beazley's loss at the last election; it was the result of Labor's own policy timidity and Howard's use of wedge politics. Given the union movement's enduring support of its political wing, it's unsurprising that some union leaders are again prepared to play the fall guy and accept the reduction in union voting rights. Others remain to be convinced that their stake in the Labor Party should be so diluted. Some in the media are portraying this as a 'Left/Right' agenda. This betrays their misunderstanding of the changes within the industrial wing of the movement. In NSW the Labor Council operates in a cross-factional, and increasingly a non-factional, manner. For us it is not about the relative strength of either of these outmoded tribes, but our ability to influence policy and candidates to ensure the Party implements a program that benefits all Australians: decent jobs, fair workplaces, and an increasing standard of living for the many, not just the few. Likewise, my calls for trade union input into the pre-selection of candidates is not designed to gain a factional advantage for the Left or the Right, but to break the factional hold on local branches with interests that are wider than the fortunes of any individual candidate. At a minimum, Labor candidates should have an appreciation of the union movement, its objectives and the pressures it faces in a modern context. With many Labor candidates this is sadly not a given. I am confident unions would exercise this type of power similarly to the way they have used the NSW Party Conference in recent times: that is, to respect the mandate of elected members of Parliament and the Labor leader while retaining a check on the excesses of both. When necessary, union votes have combined with rank and file members to head off policy misadventures - such as the attempt to privatise the NSW power industry and, more recently, in demanding a more humane policy on asylum seekers (as endorsed by the Hawke-Wran review) regardless of the short-term political pain. It should be no surprise that in both these instances, it was the rank and file and organised labour that combined to influence the direction of the Party. In fact, I can not think of an occasion when these two groups have been at odds on policy. That is because, despite the smears from the Tories, unions are in touch with the workforce; they have to be when they are fighting in such a hostile environment. In an era where the major parties are converging on many issues, the institutional strength of the modern union movement, speaking for two million workers and their families, is one of Labor's great advantages. The best parts of the Hawke-Wran report recognise this simple truth; the 60-40 debate ignores it.
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
