The shop, situated in Sydney's bustling Haymarket precinct, will give union members access to a range of services and be a home base for trade union organisers.
It's part of an effort to streamline service delivery to give union officials more time to get out into the public and organise workplaces. Labor Council will embrace this shift with all officers, including secretary Michael Costa dedicating one day in each month to organising.
"The movement is in crisis and we have to take some bold initiatives if we are to survive and grow into the next century," Costa says.
"We want to make the shopfront an appealing and useful public face for unions in NSW.
Key features will include an Internet cafe with free access to union members and officials, a referral service for reputable workers compensation lawyers and a wages and conditions inquiry desk.
The shop will also sell merchandise including T-shirts and books and provide discount movie tickets and holiday deals.
Refurbishment of the shopfront will commence next week with an opening date set for one month's time
The centre will also be the base for the Unions 2000 project, which will place union members in jobs for the Sydney 2000 Olympics.
And it will be a base for people who want to join unions to register their interest, with labor Council referring them to the relevant union. Costa says an important part of the strategy is ensuring affiliates are committed to following through on these types of inquiries.
If the city shop is a success, the Council will look at opening a similar store in Parramatta and further into Sydney's western suburbs.
Workers Online has obtained a document circulated to real estate agents from a firm calling itself ODCO Agency Contracting promising to "remove award restrictions through a workforce with "no contractual connection" to the business.
The document comes to light as it was revealed Rail Services Australia, an offshoot of the State Rail Authority, is using labour hire to complete the New Southern Railway tunnel.
Meanwhile, sacked workers from Metro shopfitting have again picketed Woolworths (see Workers Online issue #14) after being replaced with labour hire under what the union suspects is a Patricks-style corporate manoeuvre.
The rush of activity highlights the importance of the Labor Council's push to regulate labour hire through industrial relations legislation which would make it illegal to pay precarious labour less than the enterprise agreement covering the workplace in which they are placed.
June's ALP Country Conference is shaping as the site for that policy showdown, after the Premier poured cold water on the union's reform package earlier this month.
Real Estate Spin
The aggressive push into real estate by ODCO Agency Contracting is the first proof that body hire firms are marketing their services aggressively into new markets.
In a new twist, the labour hire workers are constituted as independent contractors, not employees -- meaning the labour hire firm can bypass all industrial laws and regulations.
As a result, it says employers no longer need to worry about: award wages, annual leave pay and loading, penalty rates, sick leave, public holidays, workers compensation, superannuation, payroll tax, Fringe benefits Tax, redundancy and severance packages, unfair dismissal, equal opportunity legislation, seniority or parental leave.
"ODCO Agency Contracting is a simple, cost effective way for real Estate Agencies to legitimately engage independent contractors, outside the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations system," the document begins.
Citing High Court rulings, the pitch continues that the ODCO body hire will not be deemed to be employees, are not subject to award conditions and have "no contractual connection whatsoever to your business"
In short, ODCO is offering workers without any form of industrial regulation, Labor Council assistant secretary John Robertson says. "This marks a new low point in the push for the lowest common denominator in industrial relations."
Rail Services Go Offline
Meanwhile, the CFMEU has revealed that Rail Services Australia has engaged body hire firms to help it meet its contract on the New Southern Railway.
Rail Services Australia, once part of the State Rail Authority, but still a government-owned corporation, won the contract to install track and overhead wiring and signalling on the airport link by Transfield Bouygues.
RSA has now contracted out some of that work to several body hire firms, including Sheriden Maintenance, which has come to the attention of the CFMEU for failing to meet award conditions such as superannuation and LSL payments.
CFMEU organiser Peter Harris claims the labour hire firms are bidding for the work from RSA at such low rates they can't afford to meet their obligations.
The union says RSA has been forced down the labour hire track after sacking hundreds of full-time workers.
It now plans to work with the Rail, Tram and Bus Union to clean up the RSA demanding job security, proper workers compensation policies and an inquiry into the RSA's tendering processes.
Woolies Feels Community Heat as Patricks Allegations Fly
Building workers joined the general public in picketing Woolworths city store this week, as fears of a Patricks-style corporate manoeuvre to sack full-time staff and replace them with labour hire came to light.
CFMEU says Metro Shopfitting, who do work for Woolworths and Coles supermarkets, had formed a series of new companies between which they had shuffled workers and equipment.
CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson says the company has now sacked their unionised workforce and replaced them with body hire who are being paid less then that stipulated by the certified agreement which had previously applied.
Ferguson says the dispute with Metro highlights the need for the state government to take firm action on the use of labour hire agencies to undermine or circumvent certified agreements.
CFMEU construction division state secretary Andrew Ferguson personally prosecuted Nelmac Pty Ltd under a seldom-used provision of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which gives unions the right to run its own cases rather than rely on WorkCover prosectors.
The union was awarded half of the $100,000 that Industrial Relations Commission President Lance Wright fined the company this week, along with the union's legal costs.
The prosecution was mounted after carpenter Mark Poi fell 18 metres to his death while working on a bridge. Nelmac, a contractor with the Roads and Traffic Authority has been constructing the bridge over Myrtle Gully, 50 kilometres south of Nowra.
In his judgement, Justice Wright found the work undertaken was "inherently dangerous" and imposed the fine, while recognising Nelmac's good safety record
Ferguson says the CFMEU intends to use the money to continue to fight for improvements to safety in the building industry.
by Deirdre Mahoney
More to the point, hiding from house to house among Australian trade unionists, Estanislau, from the National Council of Timorese Resistance (CNRT) and now living in Sydney, knew that he had the support of Australian comrades to take home to his people.
Addressing a peaceful rally of more than 500 people in Sydney's Martin Place on Thursday, Estanislau called on the Indonesian government to free CNRT President Xanana Gusmao. The rally was organised by the Labor Council of NSW and church and community groups.
Coinciding with events around the country, speakers called on the United Nations to send in 5,000 peacekeeping reports to ensure a free vote on indepndence.
Sr Josephine Mitchell, from the Mary Mackillop Institute of East Timorese Studies, read out messages of support from Cardinal Edward Clancy and an endorsement from 130 church leaders. Hazel Hawke appealed to the crowd to donate funds to APHEDA - Union Aid Abroad, for urgent medical aid, following reports of a surgeon having to buy a nail from a hardware store to pin together an East Timorese broken leg.
Former Attorney-General, Justice John Dowd, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, and called upon the protesters to put pressure on the Australian Government to push for 5000 troops in East Timor in the leadup to the independence vote scheduled for 8 August. Actor Chris Haywood urged the crowd to fax letters of protest to the Indonesian President Habibe, the Indonesian Embassy in Australia and Australian PM John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, and faxes were distributed throughout the crowd for them to send after the rally.
Finally, Labor Council president John Whelan called for the immediate disarming of militia groups, and MC Jane Singleton stressed the importance of union membership, both in work and social issues.
Thanks to all who attended and participated - Amnesty, APHEDA, the Churches, a vigil of women in mourning, the East Timorese singers and dancers, and of course the wonderful unions who supported the day in such strength - CFMEU, MUA, Nurses, Teachers, IEU, PSA, CPSU and Labor Council.
Despite pre-election promises that changes would be made to the Industrial Relations Act to give effect to the report, there have been no sign of any draft amendments to date.
The legislative changes would make it clear that the Industrial Relations Commission could use equal pay principles when setting wages and settling disputes.
Australian Services Union services branch secretary Alison Peters says she's written to both the premier and Industrial Relations Minister Jeff Shaw voicing her union's concern at the lack of action since the election.
Peters says without the amendments, the disparities in pay between women and men that were identified in the Pay Equity report will remain in place.
"These amendments will prevent further delays in addressing serious inequities for women workers, particularly those in low paid jobs," she says.
"It is an important matter for women workers and it is an important matter for the union movement.".
Labor Council has called on the Carr Government to move on the recommendations this session, along with its other industrial relations reform proposals.
by Dermot Browne
However this breakthrough in the private sector contrasts dramatically with the Government sponsored erosion of paid maternity leave for women in the public sector.
Rae Anne Medforth, National Organiser with the CPSU said, 'Women employed in a growing list of Commonwealth agencies are losing access to paid maternity leave.
As new agencies like Employment National are created, the government isrefusing to apply its Maternity Leave Act to them.'
'Like others in the community, public sector workers are finding it harder to strike a balance between their increasing workloads and the needs of their families. What they want in return for doing increasingly stressful jobs is a little support and understanding from their employer.' said Ms Medforth.
The CPSU has expressed deep concern that a Federal government which positions itself as 'pro-family', actively supported Employment National as it wrangled its way out of any obligation to pay maternity leave.
'Surely this cutback is sending the wrong message to the community. If a highly competitive outfit like Channel Ten can see the benefits of paid maternity leave, why is the government phasing it out for its own staff? asked Ms Medforth.
by Jeff Shaw
In a judgment delivered on 5 May 1999 PNG's highest court (constituted by Justices Woods, Salika and Sawong) determined that industrial tribunal set up under the Industrial Relations Act had power to consider an industrial
dispute about dismissal and order the reinstatement of a dismissed worker.
In 1993, a stevedoring employee (Ben Kairu) had been dismissed and an industrial tribunal held that the termination of his employment was harsh and oppressive and that he should be reinstated in his employment.
The employer said that there was no industrial dispute which gave the tribunal jurisdiction to reinstate the worker. But the court applied Australian law determined by the High Court of Australia in the Ranger Uranium Mines Case of 1987 and said that although the industrial tribunal had made a determination of legal rights "this was part and parcel of its exercise of its administrative arbitral powers" and that the tribunal could reinstate a worker as part of its consideration of "industrial fairness" which the court found clearly part of the mandate of an industrial tribunal.
The employer also submitted to the court that the tribunal had not considered the position from the point of view of the company and Papua New Guinea. However, the court held that there was no basis upon which to re-open the argument of these points that was conducted before the industrial tribunal.
The court took a relatively limited view of its role in reconsidering the tribunal's discretionary decision to reinstate a worker saying that "the role of judicial review is a review of the procedures of the body being reviewed, it is not an appeal with a discretion to consider other matters
not part of the original hearing."
The court concluded by saying that the tribunal was entitled to reach the findings, of fact that it did and that it was not open to any court to question the discretionary decision of the tribunal.
This was a good victory for the workers of Papua New Guinea and makes it clear, contrary to some earlier decisions, that an unfairly dismissed worker can achieve reinstatement under the industrial legislation of PNG.
The matter was argued for the union representing the individual workers by Michael Walton, a Sydney lawyer, who has since been appointed as Vice-President of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.
Jeff discussed some of the earlier uncertainty in "Labour Law in Papua New Guinea: Some Recent Developments" by J.W. Shaw and MJ Walton in Volume 8, Australian Journal of Labour Law, April 1995, (p.80)
by Phil Davey
Carnivale will grant $5000 to the union to stage "Unity in Diversity", a series of short plays on an anti-racism theme, for its members on major construction sites in the Sydney CBD.
Director of Carnivale Lex Marinos believes the CFMEU funding proposal was a concept that was worthy of support.
"Construction workers for a variety of reasons don't easily access the cultural palaces of Sydney, despite having built them. The CFMEU project really caught the attention of all of us at Carnivale because its about improving access to the arts."
"I'm looking forward to getting on site and seeing what the CFMEU comes up with."
The CFMEU has commissioned noted young director Richard Lagarto, who has worked at Belvoir Street, Carnivale and the Urban Theatre Project, to be Artistic Director for "Unity in Diversity".
The CFMEU Construction Division has probably the most culturally diverse membership of any union in Australia, with well over half of its 30,000 NSW members being of Non English Speaking Background.
Carnivale takes place across NSW from September 11-Ocober 4.
The CFMEU project "Unity in Diversity" which will consist of five separate performances of three short plays, will take place September 13-17. Further information can be obtained by calling the Event Co-ordinator, Industrial Officer Phil Davey, on 9394 9494.
by Mikhael Kraebye
The cleaners work for the Menzies company in the Campbelltown and Sutherland regions. They received cheques from the employer for between $6 and $6,000 each after the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) took action.
Menzies had failed to pay award conditions, in some cases since 1994. The company had failed to pay cleaners correctly even after a Union warning in 1997.
Following an LHMU investigation, Menzies settled nearly all backpay claims early in 1999.
Tip of the iceberg
LHMU organiser Paul Travers first noticed the problem when talking to cleaners at a Campbelltown school in 1996. Those few cleaners turned out to be the tip of the iceberg as Paul began to check with other cleaners in the area.
"The company was breaching the award constantly. Toilet allowance, cleaner-in-charge allowance and fare allowance were not being paid. Annual leave was being underpaid, and superannuation was not being paid," Paul said.
"Two of the biggest problems were with the award span of hours and minimum start rules. The company was ignoring these rules in many cases."
The LHMU approached Menzies but the company failed to act. So the Union began proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission.
Claims paid in full
Menzies then agreed to talk. The company restructured its management and pay office and agreed to pay in full most cleaners' backpay.
By this time, the Union had identified dozens of cleaners who were owed money. LHMU organisers Kathie Keys and Shannon Duffy found many more in the Sutherland area.
Thanks to Union action, most of the Menzies cleaners have got their money back. But the experience shows that all Union members should know their entitlements and keep all payslips.
Why Mario checks his payslip
Every dollar counts: with two young children and a wife on maternity leave, Mario Xeureb knows that every dollar counts.
That's why he was angry when he heard that he was being underpaid by the Menzies cleaning company.
"I put my time in and I expect to be paid correctly," said Mario, who now works at Campbelltown North Primary School.
Menzies underpaid Mario on toilet allowance, annual leave and minimum start by a total
of $3771.47.
Mario received a cheque for the full amount in February, 1999. "It was great. We were able to pay off our bills," he said.
"I doubt I would've got the money if I wasn't in the Union. Now I check everything on my payslip."
by Deirdre Mahoney
The day was a commemoration of last year's Sorry Day, and marked the second year of the Bringing them home report into the Stolen Generations (many of whom now refer to themselves as the Survival Generations).
The day started with a smoking ceremony at St Stephen's Uniting Church in Macquarie Street, followed by a service featuring personal stories of healing of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, performances on didgeridoo, a rainbow serpent procession, and culminating in non-indigenous Australians reciting Paul Keating's famous Redfern Park speech.
It begins with an act of recognition -
recognition that it was
We who did the dispossessing.
We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life.
We brought the diseases, the alcohol.
We committed the murders.
We took the children from their mothers.
We practised discrimination and exclusion.
It was our ignorance and our prejudice and
Our failure to imagine these things being done to us.
With some notable exceptions,
We failed to make the most basic human response and
enter into their hearts and minds.
We failed to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me?
We failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.
After the service, unions including the NSW Teachers' Federation, Independent Education Union, NSW Nurses' Association, CFMEU, MUA, CPSU, PSA and Labor Council marched with their banners amidst other supporters of reconciliation to the Botanic Gardens. There, Governor Gordon Samuels received two Uluru message sticks in a coolamon (symbolising the empty cradles of the mothers of the stolen generation) from survivor Carol Kendall.
The first encounters garden at the City Gardens is being developed as a place for reflection for indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, and is situated next to a plaque commemorating the "beginning" of Australian agriculture (from white settlement), something the head of the gardens said had always disturbed him. A memorial to the Stolen Generations will also be established at the Mt Annan Botanic Gardens.
I found Simon Hazleton's letter, headed "Timor: Look at the map!" in Workers Online, issue 14, 21.5.99, very worrying.
Apart from the fact that Mercator's projection distorts size ratios so that areas near the equator look smaller, and areas near the poles look bigger, his perceptions of what is happening in East Timor are not well founded.
I draw attention particularly at a news item by George Aditjondro "Economic interests of pro-Jakarta militias".
And is Simon aware that members of the pro-integrationist militias are recruited in WEST TIMOR, which has a very different history and identity from East Timor?
Australia owes a wartime debt and post-1975 reparations to the people of East Timor. Let's make sure our government acts in their interests, not to prop up the regime in Indonesia, the financial interests of their discredited friend, Soeharto, and their access to the Timor Gap oil.
Gai Smith.
by Peter Lewis
The word "organising" has become a bit of a catchword within the union movement in recent years. What does it mean to you?
Organising is basically the process of moving people from being consciously an individual worker into part of a collective so they are working together to improve their working life, be it pay and conditions or other aspects of their working life.
So for unions, does that mean a shift as well?
I think unions have to shift their recognition from those who pay their way as union members to those who are potentially union members, so they are attempting to expand their relevance to people who are workers, not just the traditional members.
How does that differ from the way unions have operated in the past
The way that unions have operated in the past is that they have been strong in male dominated areas of employment where there is a tradition of unionism. Today there's a shift to non-traditional forms of work like part-time and casual work, more female involvement and people coming from other countries which may not have such a tradition of unionism. Organising then is the challenge of introducing unionism to these people, both as a concept and as a way of improving their lives.
And how does one do that?
The key is that we need to make a conscious shift to adopt new approaches. We need to make it happen on a one to one basis. That can be very time-consuming to go out and talk to people about what trade unions do. and debunk a lot of the myths and stereotypes held by people who feel threatened by unions like to talk about a lot.
One of TUTA's main roles is to train up organisers to do that, what do you do to help them shift this focus.
The first thing we do is go in and say "let's have a look at the environment we're operating in and let's acknowledge that it is at best challenging because of the decline in membership numbers. We do take a realistic look and then ask ourselves what are the significant barriers we have to deal with here? These are not just constructed by conservative politicians, some are obstacles the union movement has put in place themselves.,..
Such as?
Such as: have a look at the way some unions prepare communications for their members. Are you producing something you were doing in the early 60s? Are there 12 photos of the general secretary in there and should there be more photos of members? How do you speak to members or potential members? Do you just talk at them or do you spend more time listening to them? Do you treat each member as a sort of adventure in trying to understand how they relate to their workplace before you actually talk to them about what it means to be part of a broader network? These are critical issues. A lot of the stuff we do actually relates to that communication process; one-to-one organising, building networks, developing delegates, all the way through to helping union managers strategically position their unions to capitalise on the new trends.
This is an area where the US seems a long way ahead of Australia. What are we learning from them in terms of operating in a hostile environment?
I think it's true that parts of the US movement are a long way ahead of us, but there are cultural differences so it's not always good to make those comparisons. The things we are learning from their experience in a hostile environment is that you have to be strategic, you have to be absolutely committed to going out and organising as your fundamental reason for existing and that you should get rid of anything that doesn't relate to organising.
So what would you be getting rid of?
Well, is it really important to have a conference of senior union executives or is it more important to get the people who organise members together to talk about their experiences? It's got a lot to do with how the finances are spent too, making sure that financial control and all those issues are dedicated to organising. That's the critical thing that's come out of the States, because I think in Australia there's still a tendency to spend money on non-organising aspects.
Give me some good news stories about how this approach has worked?
There's the NSW branch of the Media Alliance which has changed its approach from being fairly bureaucratic and looking after the day-to-day management of the union to going out to the workplaces to meet with delegates in workplaces. So the state executive does not meet in the union hall anymore, they meet in the workplace. That is a big move as a focus -- the executive saying we have to go out and lead the organising drive. I think the TWU has some good stories about organising coach captains and working towards what is a different notion of the workplace. Most unions are actually embracing this sense of organising. Some unions think they've 'got it' and the real threat there is that of complacency and that they don't need to keep challenging themselves. But generally, most unions see the challenge but sometimes don't know the best way to approach it.
You come from the finance sector, how have unions met the challenge in that industry?
I think in a whole variety of ways. The FSU, like most unions, is still grappling with the change but in recent years the union has really dedicated itself to understanding the membership and the potential membership in a better way. About eight years ago they undertook a significant survey and used that as a method for looking at the ways they communicate, the way they structure themselves and the way they reviewed their structures, to ensure they are pitching themselves to their membership.
A lot of this sounds like a question of marketing to the membership, which is something unions have traditionally shied away from ...
If I'm sounding like that then I'm wrong, because I don't want it to sound like unions have to come up with THE service or THE product and then market it. Organising is about going up to a worker and asking: what are the things that are important to you? and then trying to use that as part of the agenda. And then taking it a step further and asking: how strongly do you feel about this? If you really want X, are you prepared to get involved? So it's not so much a tertiary marketing campaign as a step back to the basic battle of getting the hearts and minds, but critically, getting activists as well. Organising is not just about get membership dollars in, it is very much about winning people to the union movement and to become advocates for the movement -- in the workplace, on the bus, in the home; not zealots, but committed and proud union members.
And so are you optimistic that the union movement has a future?
Absolutely. I think humanity will always find a way to organise and it won't matter what you call it, but in Australiawe have a predominance of working people and they will always find a way to organise.
Jill Biddington is TUTA's national union education officer
by Mark Hearn
Don't laugh; this is a man with a mobile phone implant, long used to dawn service on behalf of members in transport yards across the state - and helps explains why no-one took him on during the last TWU elections. He was elected un-opposed.
A consistent grass-roots approach to organising propelled Tony Sheldon to the top job; he sees no reason to change strategy now. The phone thing has spread to the TWU office: whoever picks up the receiver will assure the enquiring member that they have reached the TWU, organising Union. A small change, of itself, but one representing a profound shift in union culture - a shift to proactive recruiting and service in almost every aspect of the TWU's organising, structure and administration.
Sheldon says the main aim of the TWU's new recruitment program is "to activate members in non-union companies". Note the almost frightening lack of doubt in that statement: the members are already there, just waiting for instruction, ready to sign up - activate - those wayward non-unionists. It works. The TWU increased members by 893 in the last year.
Most of that recruiting has been done by workplace delegates and - you guessed it - "activists". These rank and filers are trained to fulfil the TWU's mission by recruiting new members and implementing workplace campaigns. The TWU trains hundreds of delegates and activists a year - a two day "Winning the Workplace" program, with another one day refresher course six weeks later, and a five day occupational health and safety program.
Tony Sheldon says the delegates and activists receive a massive confidence boost through the training programs. "You can see the relief on their faces. Now I know what to do, how to go about organising". All up, the TWU has a network of 540 delegates and 120 activists.
The TWU currently channels this enthusiasm into campaigns like the "petition projects". 600 bus drivers recently signed a petition - distributed by TWU delegates and activists - protesting a decision by the NSW Department of Transport to revoke a colleague's licence over a misconduct charge - without any reference to judicial or appeal process. Justice for their mate means justice for all of them. What union organising is all about.
Another petition is currently circulating amongst long distance drivers, campaigning for a standard "contract determination" (a bit like an award). Tony Sheldon explains that the drivers, always under pressure to get the job done fast in a highly competitive industry, "want a safe workplace, and decent conditions. It's up to the Government to come to regulate the industry."
Members not only support the union's approach to organising - they're prepared to put money on it. 92% of TWU members in the Sanitary, Garbage and Trade Waste industry recently voted to support a plan to pay 10% on top of their normal membership fees to establish a dedicated organising fund for the industry, to be administered by the rank and file and the TWU. The more members signed up, the stronger their collective clout when bargaining with employers.
Not that everything is left to the rank and file. The TWU has 20 full-time organisers, plus campaign officers, an organising director, legal officers, a super officer, a full-time trainer. For Tony Sheldon, that's just the backbone of the organising structure, which to succeed, must spread into workplaces across the state. "Only a strong rank and file network can give the union that kind of reach."
Sheldon has no doubts about the benefits of the TWU's activism. "It's the way we used to organise 25 years ago. It empowers the rank and file, and develops more loyalty and accountability within the union". It's truly amazing. He managed to say all that before the phone rang again...
by Mark Hearn
The Transport Workers Union has just produced a new history of the union, "Proud to be a TWU Member", based on interviews with retired TWU members.
NSW TWU Secretary Tony Sheldon says the aim of the project was to let TWU members speak for themselves about their working lives, and to allow younger generations of TWU members to understand just how tough it was for workers and unions to win even basic improvements in pay and conditions - and how those hard-won gains need to be fiercely protected.
It's a history about the members' own working experiences and typically, defines the TWU's attitude of who the union is - the members.
"We must keep a memory of their struggle alive", Sheldon insists, "to remind everyone on the job today that Peter Reith wants to destroy the vital achievements of those unionists." "Proud to be a TWU Member" is available through the NSW TWU and was put together by labour historians Harry Knowles and Mark Hearn. Below, retired TWU member Les Myers, who is featured in the book, tells his story.
"What time does the sun come up?"
Les Myers and life on the bone waggon
Like most young boys of his generation, Les Myers left school to start working life at the age of 13. Born in Redfern, New South Wales in 1904, Les�s first job was with Anthony Hordens in Sydney, where he swept floors and took parcels to the delivery section. However his career in the retail trade was cut-short when he was dismissed for being outside the premises without permission during working hours.
It was Les�s mother who foresaw his future career as a truck driver and tried, unsuccessfully at first, to get him into the �motor game� in a parts manufacturer at Camperdown. That didn't last long, and he moved on to a tannery near what is now Kingsford-Smith Airport but was sacked soon after, following a strike there by members of the Wool and Basil Workers� Union. It was a tough introduction to industrial relations. "I got the arse from there. I had to go on strike with them. I was only a bloody kid! I didn't know what to do." Finally, he found work at J. Kitchens and Sons (which became Lever and Kitchen, and eventually Unilever) factory in Bourke Road, Alexandria. "It was a big industry", as Les remembers. Kitchens manufactured a range of products - soap and soda washing crystals, margarine - rendered from animal fat and bones. Put simply, from butcher's left-overs.
It was at Kitchens, still only aged 13, that Les learnt to drive, although there was no "petrol power" in those days. In 1917, the road transport industry in Sydney was still dominated by the horse and dray. Kitchens had up to 150 horses, usually worked in pairs on delivery waggons. In addition to his normal duties as a driver�s off-sider, picking up caul fat for processing by the company ("they used to make margarine out of it"), Les worked on Sundays to learn the art of driving a waggon, out in Kitchens paddocks. Les would also help groom and care for the horses. From 6 am until 6 pm, he got 10 shillings for a Sunday's work. Les loved the horses: he would always sneak them a little corn and oats for their lunch.
Les was only 14 or 15 when he was given the job of driving a bone waggon. Les worked a five and a half day week, working his way around the abbatoirs and butchers shop's picking up the bones and fat, left in baskets at the rear of the premises. It was not uncommon to be followed out of the yard by a procession of fowls picking up the maggots which fell from the baskets. On less busy days, the wagon would be pulled by two horses; on the busy Mondays and Fridays a leader was added to pull the heavier loads. The leader made Les's work a little easier. "All you had to do was watch where the leader went. He'd work alright for you."
Les can still remember the name of his favourite: "Yellow, a big Clydesdale, he was a beautiful horse." Yellow was a lead horse, and if he saw weeds around the base of a telegraph pole he would always stop, oblivious to the circumstances or the trouble he caused. So learning the tricks of the trade were important. For instance, if the lead horse slackened off, the driver would take several pieces from the small pile of blue metal which was kept on the cart and flick the metal against the horse�s rear end to encourage it to pick up the pace.
Working conditions were tough. Asked what time he started the working day, harnessing the team to the wagon, Les responded: "what time does the sun come up?" Work went on until all the tasks of the day were completed. There was no payment for overtime. "You'd work all bloody hours". Yet "if you came in five minutes late they docked you quarter of an hour".
There was never enough time, as Les recalls: "your watch was your boss". Out on the road, he had to keep to a tight schedule. "If you were only five minutes late getting somewhere, it would put you about half an hour late [for the next job]. The traffic didn't move fast enough. He was my boss, the clock. If I wasn't there at quarter to eight or quarter to nine, or whatever it might be, I'd be a quarter of an hour late and I've got two shops I've got to do, I've missed. And I'm that far back, behind."
When he first joined Kitchens, Les recalls "I wasn't allowed to join the union". The company could easily intimidate a youngster wanting to hold down a job. The TWU's organiser was also denied entry to the premises. The organiser could only meet members "out on Bourke Road, outside the building". Eventually, union pressure forced the company to concede "the privilege" of meeting in the yard.
There was no allowance for sick leave. There was, however, compensation paid for workplace accidents. One day, Les scratched his arm on a fore-quarter of beef. It was a only a tiny wound, "the size of a pinhead." It soon became infected. "Me arm started to ache like buggery". His mother took him during the night to the local doctor, "who couldn't get me to the hospital quick enough." In the days before pencilin and antibiotics, an infected wound was often life-threatening. "They opened it up and shoved gauze into the wound to keep it open and weeping. I got paid for that because I was working for the company."
The union eventually came to Kitchens. Les was recruited into the TWU in 1928. He joined because he became convinced union membership would be to his benefit, and he made an effort to convince his mates. He was a workplace delegate for a while and collected union subscriptions, attending night meetings at the Trades� Hall perhaps a few times a year. There was too much pressure of work for him to treat these meetings as a social occasion. When the meeting was over, he "...couldn't get away from them quick enough. Had to get up too bloody early the next morning". Les also remembers his difficulty in getting the union dues from the members, who had little spare money. Les would pay another member's subscription from his own pocket, if the member was in financial troubles. Sometimes, they just wanted to keep the weekly sub - a few shillings - for a couple of schooners at the pub.
There were no strikes during Les� time at Kitchens (well over thirty years) and he remembers that for the most part workers did what �you were told�. Looming over their working lives was threat of the sack. "You had no control over it. If you spoke out of turn, the gate would be up and you'd be finished." His boss, Transport Manager Jack McCormack, was not a harsh man. Les remembers him as "a good bloke, knew everything about transport". He gave Les a good reference when Les left Kitchens. Yet McCormack could also be unforgiving of those who, in his view, let the company down. "He'd sack you. If you were on the right track, he'd prop you up 'til the day you died."
When Les graduated to truck driving in the late 1920s, he began on 30cwt Internationals and Model T Fords. Les worked mostly around the metropolitan area, working from six in the morning until as late as 9 pm as night. He considered himself lucky, working right through the Great Depression and the Second World War, the routine of his job enduring right through those tremendous crises. "I never stopped working. There were too many work days on the calendar".
Les remembers the war years well. Kitchens trucks were on standby during the grim days of early 1942, when many Australians feared invasion by the Japanese, whose advance had brought them half-way across Papua New Guinea, on Australia's northern doorstep. Kitchens trucks would be used in case the rapid evacuation of civilians was required. Drivers like Les were also on call, allocated various areas outside the metropolitan Sydney to take civilians if a mass evacuation became necessary.
There was an allocation of only two gallons a petrol a week during the War years. Most of the driving Les undertook was in vehicles which employed "gas producers" as a fuel source. The gas producers were fixed behind the truck cabin - basically a large drum, a burner powered by charcoal. The burners were potentially dangerous: Les can still recall the night he was parked in Ashfield - working late again - when a young lad emerged from the nearby cinema and placed his hand on the red hot producer. The lad received serious burns to his hand.
On a lighter side, Les (a self-confessed larrikin ) once convinced the foreman that more power could be obtained from the gas producer by burning sheep heads which the foreman mistakenly believed Les had placed into the burner. Later that day the irate foremen quizzed Les on the amount of extra horsepower Les had told him to expect (�About a mile an hour.�): �You little bastard� said the foreman, �We didn�t get any miles an hour and all the bloody trucks were late!�
Relations between the police and truck drivers was generally good, although Motorcycle police were always on the look-out for trucks parked illegally and would not hesitate to book an offending driver. This was a costly business for drivers with Kitchens because the company refused to pay the fines. Police on point duty were more sympathetic towards truckies. Les remembers one in King Street, Newtown, called �the Black Prince�. He would always wave Les through, stopping the other traffic. Les would always give �the Black Prince� bones for his dog.
There was one occasion when Les failed to escape the long arm of the law. He was booked for not covering his load. Les hadn�t attached the tarpaulin because it was a nuisance for drivers who made frequent stops. He was fined �10, a lot of money in those days. To this day, Les resents the company's refusal to pay the fine for him: "You know you've got a tarp; use it!" Les claims he was saving Kitchens time and money by not having to crawl up and down the truck each time he stopped.
Les is 93 years old now, and still holds a driver�s licence. He is still a member of the Transport Workers� Union. He has a good recall of his working life with J. Kitchens and Sons, but is less bothered about dates and years. They didn't matter. "Years didn't count them days. All you had was a job; and you had to look after your job. If you didn't have a job you had no bread on the table." That was the pressure he, and his work mates, had to live with.
by Tony Morison
by Ryan Heath
Popcorn promised much and in many respects it delivered. But when I say delivered, I mean like an Express Post envelope that didn't turn up on time. Popcorn, the new play by Ben Elton , takes a while to get going. Essentially it's a comedy thriller which sees the audience thrust into a ninety minute live hostage situation. Set in the Living room of Oscar-winning director Bruce Delamantri, Popcorn treats you to an intoxicating mix situation comedy and, at times, appallingly bad accents. Think The Nanny and be scared.
You see, Bruce has just won an oscar for the controversial, and some say downright evil, movie- 'Ordinary Americans'. The people who have issues with it (excluding the four losing nominees) say that it glorifies violence and that its depiction of life is another example of one half of America being downtrodden for the entertainment of the the other half. They would like to see it called "57 Shootings, then some drugs and fucking".
To express their personal distress at the content of 'Ordinary Americans', or so they say, si Wayne and Scout have gone on a two month, four state shooting spree. They have also ended up at Bruce's house on Oscar night to take him and whowever is with him, hostage, and then announce to America in the typical shy, retiring American style (national television), that it was Bruce's movie which made them kill those innocent people. Having thus created and provided the media with a scapegoat, Wayne and Scout hope to live off the book deal. Throw in Brooke "I'm an actress, not a nude model" Daniels who is Bruce's catch form the after-Oscar party; Farrah (played by Jane Turner form Fast Forward) Bruce's silicon powered and very bitter estate hungry estranged wife; Velvet their bratty daughter, and a Hollywood heavy bigshot tough-guy producer, and there becomes a hostage situation in which some entirely unbelievable hi-jinx could be played out with credibility. Patience is the key to enjoying this one.
In the first half Popcorn pulls a few laughs here or there, but generally it's one too many bad southern accents and not enough gaffa tape. At her best, Jane Turner can be great , in Popcorn she doesn't quite convey the true devastation that is inherent in the suffering of shopping withdrawal symptoms, but she pulls her weight well. Wayne (Steve Bastoni) and Scout (Nadine Garner) as the fun-loving redneck criminals really get into gear after the break (or maybe it was just the diluted Star City alcohol?) posing a moral question a minute -- sinking fear deep into the audiences fake pearls, plunging necklines, and wanky skivvys (it's the theatre, dahling). Steven Vidler as the lead, Bruce, overacts, but we'll live with it. Everyone else puts in believable likeable performances.
So, to make a five act play into a six hundred word review, the whole shebang comes to an almighty climax and retains a surprising amount of artisitic integrity in getting there.
Labour review, Issue 18
Company profits are booming but not your wages, even when George Trumbell's $5million is included. Labour Review looks at the figures. Also a recent award simplification decision has broad implications for federal awards. However, another decision shows that employees can't be bullied into signing AWAs and the Federal Court has defended an employees right to be a union member. There are still some enlightened employers out there, despite Peter Reith's best efforts, and Merrill Lynch has set an example with maternity leave entitlements.
Company Profits and Average Weekly Earnings The federal government is constantly telling us that unions are greedy and the forces of business are constrained by excessive wage growth that is jeopardising Australian industry and keeping unemployment high. A quick comparison of company profits and average weekly earnings provides some realism with which to dispute the government's extremism.
Average weekly earnings growth (seasonally adjusted) for the 12 months to February 1999 (remember average weekly earnings includes the highest of the high income earners ie the Packers, George Trumbell) was 1.8%.
Company profit rates seasonally adjusted over the same period before income tax (optional for some companies it seems) were 23.6%, averaging 6% growth per quarter since 1997.
The biggest growth areas were retail trade where profits increased 27% in the March quarter 1999, and Other Services (includes utilities and accommodation) where growth of 32% was recorded. (Australian Bureau of Statistics: no. 5651.0, Company Profits March quarter 1999;
Economic Indicators, NSW A quick statistical overview of NSW shows (change from previous month):
Award Simplification: not a simple matter at all! Peter Punch considers the implications of the AIRC decision regarding Peter Reith appeal against a number of awards. Very few of the decisions which were challenged by the Minister survived the culling process.
The fact that parties to an award may have reached an agreement appears to be unlikely to be enough to protect them from culling under s89A(6) of the Workplace Relations Act. Award provisions have to be incidental to allowable award matters, not just to the award itself.
On a more positive note, the protection of outworkers has been preserved in the Clothing Trades Award. (Australian Industrial Law News; newsletter no. 4, 30 April, 1999)
Take it or leave it AWAs under a cloud A company which wanted its employees to sign Australian Workplace Agreements on the basis that they either accept the AWA or lose their jobs has had an interlocutory injunction placed against it. The Federal Court said that the company's behaviour was unconscionable conduct which no employee in a humane, tolerant and egalitarian society should have to suffer.
The company argued that when s170WG(1) of the Workplace Relations Act was read in conjunction with the explanatory memorandum, an employer was entitled to offer employment on the basis that the employee sign an AWA.
The court said that the explanatory memorandum was not statute and thus could not upset the meaning of s170WG(1) (Australian Services Union v Electrix Pty Ltd, Fed Ct (Marshall J, 11 March, 1999 (1999 45 AILR 4-026)
(Australian Industrial Law News; newsletter no. 4, 30 April 1999)
Women and Employment The client surveys of the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW indicate that the work place is still a battlefield for women - a place of stress and discrimination against which solitary redress is often the only remedy. Women report that discrimination complaints systems based on individual complaints are unsatisfactory because systemic issues are not dealt with.
Because the system relies on individual complaints, the stress involved for the complaintant is often overwhelming. The outcomes for women from non-English speaking backgrounds are even worse.
The Board supports the recommendation of the Glynn Inquiry report into Pay Equity to extend the principles of the Anti-Discrimination Act to pay equity. (Equal Time; no. 40, May 1999)
Picking Up the Pieces: Trade Union Strategies for Vocational Education and Training URCOT (Union Research Centre on Organisation and Technology) reviews the trade union experience of the reform of the vocational training sector over the last decade. The goal of the large scale reforms in the sector was the creation of a high skill, high wage economy.
However between 1989 and 1997 apprentice numbers fell by 18.9%. Traineeships in the service sector offset this to an extent but actual training hours fell in the period.
Training received was very sharply defined by class and gender. Managers and professionals did very well out of training, but clerical, sales and service workers, plant and machine operators and labourers were much further down the totem pole. Organisations with 75% male workers more than doubled the training expenditure of organisations with 75% female employees.
In the public sector there has been a decrease in training expenditure. The public sector has long been a skills incubator but with corporatisation, downsizing, contracting out and privatisation this role has been diminished.
The report concludes that the decade long assault on craft unions and the traditional trade system has been undertaken because the militant unions in these industries were seen as a threat to the new enterprise, managerial culture that has been developed under the Hawke-Keating ALP and now by the Coalition. (URCOT. Picking Up the Pieces/ report prepared by Peter Ewer, May 1999)
Private Sector Paid Parental Leave: Merrill Lynch Sets the Pace Merrill Lynch has established an enntitlement of ten weeks paid leave for primary care givers and one week for non-primary care givers. The policy applies world wide and adoptive parents are included in the scheme. (Discrimination Alert; issue 87, 25 May 1999)
Sacked Unionist Awarded Compo Bluehaven Transport has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay a courier driver $2,500.00 compensation after it sacked him because of his union activities. The employee was dismissed after two months of work, following his complaints about his employment conditions and informing management that he was a TWU member. (Transport Workers Union of Australia v Bluehaven Transport Pty Ltd. FCA 565. 30/4/99). (Discrimination Alert; issue 87, 25 May 1999)
by Penny Finlay
An estimated 180,000 workers in NSW may be exposed to lead every day. Many workers associate lead risk jobs with industries such as lead mining and smelting. But workers in a range of occupations are exposed to lead and are not being made aware of the hazards.
There are many other jobs not previously considered lead risk which can expose workers to lead, including automotive body or radiator repair, building, construction and demolition, refinery or service stations, metal industries and professional and amateur rifle ranges - and maintenance workers or cleaners in any of these industries.
Recently in NSW, workers who would not have considered themselves lead workers were poisoned by exposure to lead over a very short period of time. A number of NSW Police Service weapons instructors including a pregnant officer, were 3-7 times above the National Goal for all Australians of 10 ug/dL. These workers never thought of themselves as lead workers.
This situation could have been avoided if an understanding of the uses and hazards of lead were well recognised in the workplace. In industries where there is little or no regulation of occupational health and safety, for example the building and construction industry, the above scenario may well be repeated. What's worse it may not and workers without knowing it, will accumulate lead in their bodies and pass it onto their families.
Employers have a duty of care under the Occupational Health & Safety Act 1983 to provide a safe and healthy working environment. Any material containing more than 1% lead is a 'designated hazardous substance' in NSW. The OHS (Hazardous Substances) Regulation and Code of Practice 1996 requires occupational lead hazards to be controlled. The Waste Minimisation and Management Regulation 1996 and Dangerous Goods Regulation 1998 specify required labelling, storage, transport and disposal of lead materials and waste. Worksafe Australia has developed an excellent Standard and Code of Practice: Control of Inorganic Lead at Work NOHSC 1012 & 2015 (1994). Unfortunately, this Standard is not currently enacted in NSW.
There are changes in the international recognition of harmful effects of lower lead levels on health in children and adults. It has been known for over a century that exposure to lead can cause serious long term health effects. We used to only be concerned when workers keeled over in the street from lead poisoning in the mines. Now we are aware of health effects long before this stage but we are also using lead in many more products. While all people are at risk, unborn children, pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of lead.
The health effects of lead are:
� Lead is a poison and can affect almost every part of the body yet symptoms may not occur until high lead levels are reached.
� Low levels of exposure can cause joint and muscle pain, high blood pressure and memory loss.
� At higher lead levels lead exposure can damage fertility especially in men and can damage major organs and can cause nerve and blood problems.
� Very high levels of lead can cause fits, coma and, in extreme cases, death.
� The body can get rid of only small amounts of lead each day. If more lead is entering the body than can be removed, it can build up over time causing health problems.
Lead gets into the body by:
� Breathing in dust and fumes. This is the main way lead enters a worker's body.
� Eating contaminated food and drink can occur if workers don't wash their hands before meals and eat in workplaces where lead dust is present.
� Absorption through the skin can happen where leaded petrol or lubricants are handled without gloves or barrier cream.
Many people assume that we have dealt with the hazards of lead with the gradual removal of lead in petrol and lead in domestic paint. However lead ore production levels are increasing demonstrating that this is not a product of the past. Lead is used in batteries, in industrial paints and coatings, in plastics and in a range of other products. Workers are involved in the production and usage of these products and mostly are not aware of the hazards.
This is an important health issue that we seem to regularly forget about. One hundred years ago, Queensland doctors were the first in the world to identify the issue of lead poisoning of children from paint on verandahs. In the early 1990s it was the death of dogs in Broken Hill that triggered the screening of the town's children and the subsequent program.
In the process of looking for statistics on child health, significant numbers of adults (workers) have been found to be lead poisoned. We need to take action to ensure that people are aware and don't forget about this issue. Mary Jaeger (ph.9264 1691) will coordinate a meeting at Labor Council to further this issue for workers.
by the Federal Opposition's Industrial Relations Spokesman
Firstly, as a body of the best informed IR practitioners in NSW, you meet at a time when the debate on the future direction of our nation's IR system is at the forefront of national political debate. Industrial relations have always been an important political, as well as economic and commercial issue. Throughout the years though, there has usually been agreement between the two main political parties on a core of values - reflected in a shared support for certain procedures and structures underpinning the IR system. We meet at a time when that is no longer the case.
The gulf between Labor and Liberal IR policies now goes to the very heart of not just the IR system, but the very nature of the society we want for ourselves and our children.
Secondly, most of you have the unique experience in Australian IR of practicing in two very different systems;
1. A state system based on collective representation and negotiation underpinned by a strong independent Commission; and
2. A Federal system increasingly focused on individual negotiation in which the role of an independent umpire has been eroded, and in some cases totally removed.
There is not a better group to meet with to discuss these competing ideas.
So let's have a look at the Reith/Howard changes.
'Choice'
This Government's changes are predicated on the publicly stated view that Government intervention in IR should be either removed or reduced. This has been shrouded in rhetoric about 'choice' and 'rights'. That rhetoric is both false and misleading.
The Minister has constantly demonstrated that if he doesn't approve of agreements made between unions and employers, he will happily seek to have their choice of agreement replaced by his. The Liberal government has used s. 109 of the Act to intervene in matters on a number of occasions, contrary to the expressed wishes of all parties to an agreement.
To illustrate the point lets look at a couple of examples. We saw the Minister's unwarranted intervention in the Federal Pastoral Award. This Award was simplified by consent between the NFF and AWU following 18 months of negotiation - however despite being acceptable to both sides taking into account the contemporary reality of the pastoral industry in Australia, the Minister decided that he knew better and would intervene.
One of the interesting aspects of this case is the parties involved. The NFF are not shrinking violets in the IR world. They hardly need Mr Reith's comforting hand on their shoulder to negotiate an agreement, especially in a core area of activity. And as their involvement in the Dubai/Patrick's fiasco showed, they are more than willing to go on the offensive when it suits them. Clearly though, their right to choose the best terms for a key industrial agreement come second to Peter Reith's real agenda - a matter I will return to.
In 1997 the Minister attacked the National Australia Bank for coming to an agreement with the Finance Sector Union that provided a 12.8% pay increase over three and a half years. After this uninvited and unwelcome intervention, Don Argus wrote to the Minister to advise why the bank had chosen this particular type of agreement. That the head of one of the most profitable corporations in Australia felt it necessary to "please explain" to Minister Reith casts a serious shadow over the Minister's 'choice' rhetoric and should be of concern to both unions and employers.
Only last week we witnessed his latest intervention seeking to overturn the choice made by union and employer representatives. In his home state of Victoria, the Minister is trying to have an agreement altered between unions and employers for the Federation Square project. We now know that Mr Reith wrote to his Federal colleague and fellow Victorian, Arts Minister Peter McGauran saying that if the industrial agreement were signed the Federal Government would not hand over the $50m for the cinemedia component of the project.
Again the participants are significant. I am reliably informed that officers of the Kennett government were closely involved in the progress of these particular negotiations and whilst not parties to it, were quite happy with the outcome. The Kennett government can hardly be described as babes in IR, or as some sort of pushovers much less lackeys for unions.
Little wonder Jeff Kennett responded saying,
"I don't think it is right for Mr Reith or the Federal Government to be holding a gun at Victoria's head".
This case is now set to play out in the courts with one of the affected unions, the ETU taking legal action against Mr Reith claiming a breach of Section 170NC of the Act. This section makes it an offence for a person to take any action coercing another person to change an enterprise agreement. This promises to be a very interesting case well worth watching.
Similarly, we have seen attempts for some years now by the Minister, to cajole construction industry companies into taking action against unions. This has extended to altering Commonwealth Government contracts to facilitate extended disputes without head contractors incurring the usual penalties.
Apart from the obvious ideological agenda that drives this obsession, it is difficult to see the advantage to the industry or our nation. Indeed management consultants McKinsey & Company rate the Australian construction industry as amongst the best in the world. They report:
"The industry's productivity is close to world-best practice. It stands at about 95 per cent of US levels which is comparable with France and Germany, and more than 25 per cent ahead of Sweden and Japan. ...The Australian construction industry's performance is impressive"
That's hardly a description of an industry in such desperate straits that industrial relations Armageddon is warranted. I can't resist the temptation to note that Minister Reith's latest exhortation to this sector at the Master Builders Association last week in Sydney was reported in the media as having been received in silence without "a single clap forthcoming".
The final example I will raise in this address, although I should add it is not an exhaustive list, is the vehicle industry. If promoting industrial trouble in the construction industry is difficult to explain, then doing it in the Australian automotive industry is simply stupid. Nonetheless, that is exactly what we have seen with a page one newspaper report in April of just such a plan.
I have confirmation of this absurd plan from two separate sources. Although; this was not a totally unexpected tactic given the Minister's comments in his leaked letter to the Prime minister in which he complained that wages in this industry are too high. It would seem the automotive industry's choices don't conform to Peter Reith's. Thankfully his zeal for confrontation is not shared by the industry.
It's little wonder that a report in last week Business Review Weekly described Peter Reith as,
"... possibly the most interventionist industrial relations minister in Australia's history ..."
This description followed a report that Peter Reith was unhappy with the national agreement that whitegoods manufacturer Email was seeking to establish to cover its Australian operations. In this case the company and the AMWU want to provide an agreement that covers all of Email's employees across Australia. If 'choice' in IR means anything, surely it includes the right of these parties to make a judgement whether this is the most appropriate industrial agreement in their circumstances.
At the other end of the spectrum we have seen the Hunter Valley No. 1 mine dispute drag on much longer than it should have, precisely because this government's IR laws prevented the Commission from settling it earlier.
The lesson from this is that where a dispute or agreement meets with this government's political agenda, then the actions of the participants - or at least one of the participants - will be supported. Where they don't, the parties will face intervention, cajoling or pressure to conform to a government strategy.
Clayton's Intervention -
(The intervention you have when you're not having intervention)
In his second reading speech on the 1996 bill, Peter Reith said;
'... this bill is about providing employers and employees with much greater choice about how to regulate their relationships..."
That is simply untrue. It's time this government's approach to IR was tagged for what it is. This is a government that has increased intervention in IR, not reduced it. But it has done that in a most partisan and divisive manner.
The most widely understood example of this was the Dubai/Patrick's fiasco. As noted by David Peetz Head of the School Of Industrial Relations at Griffith University;
"So closely was the Government working with Patrick that legislation establishing a levy on port users to pay for waterfront redundancies had been drafted and was able to be introduced within hours of the Patrick workers being ostensibly made redundant. The amount and nature of the material was sufficient to persuade Justice North and, on appeal, the full benches of the Federal and High courts, that there was a case to answer that Patrick, the Government and others had engaged in a conspiracy to breach the freedom of association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act. The parties settled rather than let the claim go to trial. These were not the actions of a government intent on letting the parties at enterprise level sort things out for themselves."
As that case demonstrated, the reality of government intervention goes well beyond a personal attitude of the Minister. The present IR legislation, and to an even greater extent, the announced second wave of changes, strip the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of powers that are then transferred to other people or structures. The ACCC, the Employment Advocate and the Minister himself are the great beneficiaries of this power transfer.
The real effect of the Howard/Reith model is to shift Government intervention to other places where they believe decisions will be made that better suit their ideological preference.
In his leaked letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister complained that the AIRC had granted 'generous' increases in the minimum wage. He foreshadowed his approach to such situations by proposing to set up a new tribunal selected from Treasury, the Productivity Commission and Reserve Bank. Clearly they were to set a new (and no doubt lower) minimum wage. The strategy is plain. It is not less intervention, simply a different type of intervention.
Office of Employment Advocate
One of the big winners in this power shuffle has been the Office of the Employment Advocate. I don't intend to beat around the bush. This has become the political arm of government in IR. Its role in the construction industry, its promotion of AWA's (much loved by Peter Reith and Jeff Kennett, but patronised by few others), its media campaigns and its public polling are tainted with the core political agenda of this government.
The appointment earlier this year of Peter Reith's former senior staffer, Jonathan Hamberger to head that office does nothing to dispel this image.
Last week the Minister told the Master Builders Australia Symposium;
"The government created the Office of the Employment Advocate to assist in the enforcement of aspects of the Workplace Relations Act."
Contrast that with the way it was presented to a wary public by the then Liberal Opposition. It was to be the workers advocate - a type of workers ombudsman. They even claimed the Employment Advocate would provide 'support for young people, women and people from non-English speaking backgrounds'. There's been precious little of that!
The Minister is no longer trying to hide what he expects the OEA to do.
At the last election, my predecessor, Bob McMullan undertook to abolish that office. It won't surprise you to learn that I intend to do the same thing.
Jobs and IR
The spin the government has put on its IR changes to sell them to Australian workers is that they create jobs. Now is not the time to go into an exhaustive debate on this issue. However, given the pivotal role this point plays in the government's PR pitch for change in industrial relations, it is necessary to make some comment.
The government's claims of job growth based on lower minimum wages flies in the face of international experience.
The ILO has noted;
"... the unemployment rates among least skilled workers evolve to a large extent independently of changes in their remuneration."
Within Australia, the AIRC has considered this issue in the course of recent national wage cases. They too concluded;
"... moderate increases in the wages of the low paid, of themselves, do little or nothing to diminish their job prospects. "
This has been authoritatively demonstrated by Card and Krueger in their study of fast food employment in New Jersey, where minimum wages rose 19 per cent in 1992 opposed to results in Pennsylvania where it was unchanged. There was no negative effect on jobs as a result of a substantial wage increase. In fact jobs grew in New Jersey.
More recently, US researchers Bernstein and Schmitt published the results of their analysis of the last two minimum wage increases in the US in October 1996 and September 1997. Four different tests failed to find any systematic significant job losses. Not only were the estimated employment effects generally small they were almost as likely to be positive as negative.
More recently and closer to home the Editorial of the Mercer- Melbourne Institute Quarterly Bulletin of Economic Trends published this year said;
"... further IR reform is unlikely to result in a significant reduction in unemployment."
For those interested in pursuing the matter, Dr David Peetz has an excellent article in the December 1998 Journal of Industrial Relations. That article identifies a number of other studies confirming these findings.
Regulation vs De-regulation
Whilst I think it is clear that deregulation of the labour market is more a marketing mantra than a practice for this government, there are some who advocate it as the future direction we should take. They too ignore the facts.
A Flinders University study looking at the international experience on this very question produced interesting findings. The study concluded;
"The most recent evidence suggests no statistically significant relationship between measures of macro economic performance and different types of bargaining systems (with the exception that the centralised systems produce less earnings inequality) ."
Interestingly, this research was commissioned by a major employer group not known for their support of organised labour the Australian Mines and Metals Association.
The ILO, in a paper to the G7 Employment Conference in April 1996 concluded;
"As regards the role of labour market institutions, and especially that of collective bargaining and wage setting mechanisms, it has been argued that there is a positive correlation between trade union power or trade union membership and unemployment. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis. "
In fact the evidence in the regulate/deregulate debate goes further, acknowledging the positive role unions can play.
A study conducted by Lisa Lynch of Tufts University and Sandra Black of the New York Federal Reserve, in a survey of 1,500 workplaces in the United States, found that on average unionised workplaces recorded productivity levels 16 per cent higher than the base line firm which was not unionised. The study found that the majority of unionised firms had adopted what were described as high performance management techniques.
In contrast the non unionised firms who had also adopted high performance management techniques yielded only a 10 per cent better productivity performance over the base line firm.
The message is clear. De-regulated labour markets do not produce improvements in employment or other key economic indicators. Moreover, progressive high quality management and union leadership working together in a collective environment produces the best outcomes.
New Zealand - Our Future
The government and some of their more vocal supporters cite New Zealand as proof of the success of their policies and an example we should emulate.
You don't have to look too closely at New Zealand to know how wrong they are. New Zealand's record in a number of key areas is less than impressive. A comparison of the critical measure GDP per head reveals the real situation in New Zealand.
At 1990 prices and exchange rates in $US the New Zealand rate increased from $12,869 in 1985 to just $13,835 by 1996. That's an improvement of slightly less than $US 1,000 in more than a decade.
In comparison, the Australian figures are $15,991 in 1985 and $19,351 in 1996. That is an improvement of more than $US 3,300 over the same period - a period in which the Hawke and Keating Labor governments set economic, social and IR policies.
The New Zealand performance would look even worse, was it not for the substantial net negative migration. Between 1984/85 and 1995/96, there was a net migration of negative 25,019 people. If the 150,000 Kiwis who came to Australia in those years were still in New Zealand, the GDP per head figures would be even less flattering.
In spite of what some on the right of the Australian debate may say, the Kiwis have voted with their feet.
The society our IR system is building
It is not possible to conduct an IR debate in splendid isolation from other policy matters, nor to link it simplistically with employment and ignore other considerations.
We need to take stock of the social impacts of our IR policies. As flexible hours and increased travel become common and almost mandatory, what assessment is made of the effect this has on family, on children's education, on voluntary group work - in short on those things that make us a community rather than an economy. More often than not, these factors are not even considered, either;
- by workers worried about future job cuts or competing for a job or promotion, or
- by employers trying to improve this years bottom line or
- by unions focused on the latest round of bargaining or wave of legislative change or
- by a government pursuing its ideological and narrow plans
We all have to stand back and have a good look at the consequences of current IR policies. In the short time left I will canvass just a few.
In a revealing survey conducted for the Australian Industry Group (AIG) by Rod Cameron's ANOP, we see an Australia where the concept of mateship has been replaced by the competitive drive for survival or greater wealth. It seems that not even the Prime Minister's preamble can save mateship.
Rod Cameron noted;
"Employees have never competed so ruthlessly against each other for jobs and money ... Loyalty between employer and employee is being eroded across the board and many young Australians don't experience it."
This has serious immediate implications for managers and unions. It has very significant medium term implications for our nation.
The focus on individuals rather than groups, the insecurity from wave after wave of downsizing and restructure and an IR system that tries to isolate workers from their fellow workers and union has produced a workforce that no longer feels loyalty to their work mate or their boss.
Company esprit de corps has not survived the onslaught. And make no mistake; the recent trends in IR have contributed significantly to its death.
A Fair Go for Who
Rod Cameron's research also revealed disquiet amongst Australian workers, many of whom do not feel they are getting a fair go. Comments regularly made by participants in his research such as;
- 'So the economy is meant to be in good shape. Okay. But I'm still struggling' and
- So unemployment is meant to be falling. Okay. But my job isn't safe and job security is a thing of the past'
Cameron concluded;
"Many Australians feel that they are still struggling and that they have received little recognition or reward for their contribution to a more productive and competitive Australia."
And why should they when they see on the news Australian businessmen listed in Forbes Global magazine with pay packets of $US2.59m for Coles Myer boss Dennis Eck. Or $US2.5m for BHP boss Paul Anderson, or $US 1.8m for Don Argus ... and the list goes on. When the BCA proposes wage freezes or restraint, or when ACCI argues that there should have been no increase in the minimum wage at all this year, it is little wonder workers hold the views identified in the ANOP/AIG survey.
To rub salt into their wound, they also know that the tax burden falls unfairly on them. Without wanting to provoke a full-blown GST debate, it should be recognised that they see the GST as just another unfair burden on them.
There is an Alternative
At the next Federal election, the people of Australia will be presented with dramatically different IR policies.
A Liberal/National party proposal based increasingly on individual negotiations, AWAs, a nobbled Commission and a further shift of power to bodies that do not enjoy public trust.
The Labor alternative will be based on the independence and expanded authority of the industrial relations umpire. It will recognise that one size doesn't fit all - that unions and employers should be able to establish workplace, enterprise, or industry agreements where that meets their needs.
It will be instilled with my strong belief that IR works best for those involved and our nation when we work together. To do that we have to improve the knowledge and understanding that key participants have of their own constituency, their enterprise, their industry, wider national issues, and the concerns of other parties in their sector.
The divisive and confrontationist style of this government has taken us in precisely the wrong direction.
The living proof of that difference is here in New South Wales.
At the next election, Australians will have the choice of their wages and working conditions being determined in a Federal system like New South Wales, Queensland or Tasmania on the one hand or to follow Peter Reith and his second wave down the West Australian path.
Those in the IR community should hold on to their hats - it's going to be one hell of a ride.
This speech was delivered to the NSW Industrial Relations Society on Friday
by Anthony Sharwood
So how were the tigers getting along? Not too well it appeared, despite some generous (and unsolicited) donations from several incredibly big-hearted Australians who had watched the original story.
If only others were as generous...
"We have a saying in Russia", Vladimir the Tiger scientist said. "There are so many people out there who love tigers, you could feed a few of them to the tigers and no-one would notice."
The problem, continued Vladimir, was obtaining even a small financial commitment from the people who professed to care.
That's when I got thinking.
I'm a Balmain Tigers fan, you see, and I haven't heard too much about the Balmain Rugby League club donating anything to the Save-the-Tigers fund lately. There was a team trip to the zoo to visit the caged tigers. Yes, I definitely saw something about that on the news. But a cheque to Vladimir just outside of Vladivostok? If it's happened, then news has escaped me.
So as I say, I've been thinking: what if all sporting teams were forced to pay some sort of environmental levy if their team mascot is on the endangered list? I don't know exactly how it would work, but a 50 cent or one dollar levy per bum on seat per match would seem more or less fair.
Ridiculous, you say? Well you tell me - what's free in the world anymore? You can't impersonate anyone's looks or voice without being sued these days. So why on earth should a sporting team be able to have an endangered animal as its logo without being forced to compensate the animal in some small way?
Ok, you say, but wouldn't it be an unfair slug on clubs that happen to have endangered animals as their mascots? Not a bad point, but why stop with those clubs? Make the Sydney City Roosters fork out for the cost of controlling Newcastle Disease. Or why not get the Canberra Raiders to fund a course in Viking History at the ANU?
Seriously, it's time the clubs stopped paying half a million dollars to alcoholics and players who crap all over their motel rooms. Give some money to those magnificent creatures of the wild who know better than to foul their own den.
Now that would really be displaying the famed "tiger spirit".
The project is part of a strategic shift to organising and recruiting which was recently endorsed by the Council's executive.
In recognition of the crisis the union movement currently faces in the face of falling members, the Executive has recognised it needs to reorientate activities and culture.
The organising strategy has three core components:
(i) establishing a high-level Organising Committee to develop movement-wide recruitment campaigns.
(ii) union officials spending more time out of the office and in the field. Labor Council officers, including myself, will set an example for all unions by allocating one day per month to spreading the union message in railway stations, shopping malls and workplaces.
(iii) the opening of a shopfront on the ground floor of the Labor Council building to house the Organising Centre and act as a public contact point for union members.
The idea of shop-front unionism is nothing new; it's been floating around the movement for nearly a decade. The difference is that this one will actually be open for business within a month.
The Centre will provide union members with a range of services including:
- free Internet access
- a rehabilitation and OHS referral service
- a workers compensation legal referral service
- a referral centre for new union members
- financial and superannuation advice
- an information desk for award inquiries
- health advice, through the Workers Health Centre
- discount deals on movie and travel
- merchandise including books and T-shirts.
The centre will provide a support base for individual affiliates' organising services, particularly in ensuring follow-up inquiries are answered promptly. By making service delivery easier, it will allow unions to put more of their energy and resources into organising.
Importantly, the centre will also house a group of reputable labour legal firms, who specialise in workers compensation and personal injury. I am sick of ambulance chasing lawyers exploiting injured workers and the workers compensation system. The firms we are dealing with have recognised that it's better to prevent an injury than chase an ambulance. They will treat people with integrity and compassion.
The Internet access will give union officials and members a chance to check their e-mail while they are down this end of town. Over time, I envisage the centre becoming a meeting place for activists.
And the merchandising opportunities will mean there is now a public spot where people who want to support the union movement can buy gifts.
This initiative is all about sending a message that no matter where you are in the union hierarchy, the most important task is organising; this is not a peripheral activity it is core business.
Seventy five per cent of the Australia population support trade unions, currently our densities are 28 per cent so we need to ensure that those who believe in unions know where they can find us. The shopfront isn't the solution, but it's an important first step.
In a piece entitled "Sorry, now let's get on with it" Piers bagged those who believe an apology to the Aboriginal people is appropriate, while constructing an at times strained argument to claim the Howard Government has done more for Aboriginal people than any before it.
Piers' primary argument seems to be that as injustice is an historical constant there's no need for a special apology to the Aboriginal people.
"Humans have, however, been treating humans badly all around the globe for millennia," he says. "Such activities didn't begin in Australia and, tragically they certainly haven't ended elsewhere, as we are reminded daily in the foreign pages."
On this basis, while all thinking people would have sorrow about the past, it is not up to us to say "sorry".
The semantic difference between sorrow and sorry seems slight, but it could not be starker. Sorrow comes from the perspective of the passive observer. But to say 'sorry' involves taking some personal agency.
Why should I be sorry as a European Australia? I live a relatively affluent existence in a society which is based on the dispossession of land from another people. Life is good. It's not my fault, but it has been to my benefit.
If Aboriginal people weren't forcibly removed from the land, if there families had not been broken up, if they had not been routinely shot and poisoned by my forebears, would I be in the same position as I am today? Probably not, but it's not my fault.
So why should I say sorry? I say sorry, because I recognise that this society that I enjoy living in is built on shaky foundations, there is an injustice permeating our occupation of Australia that should not be silently accepted.
An apology is in order for the sins of the past, and the overt and latent racism of some of my fellow Australians today. Bad things have happened and it's time they were put right.
In relationship counselling, apologies are often used as a positive form of therapy -- for both the wrongdoer and the wronged.
By looking someone squarely in the eye and giving an unreserved apology which details the effect of one's actions, placing oneself in the other's shoes, new understandings and connections can be forged.
For the wronged, it can send a message that their pain has been recognised, that they do exist. And in doing so, it can engender a confidence that the abuse will not be repeated.
For the wrongdoer the experience can be just as rich, allowing them to see the effects of their actions is an important step in allowing them to fully exist. So long as we can only see ourselves as innocent bystanders in the unfolding of history, we remain powerless and without an identity.
The problem with debating Sorry Day with people like Piers is that we are probably talking about different concepts. Piers rightly rejects the superficial "sorry" gesture, but I don't think he gets the point about striving for a deeper feeling of empathy with indigenous Australia.
If he did, he wouldn't be lauding Howard and Herron and their penny-pinching band-aid approaches to Aboriginal health issues that will remain a running sore until we deal with the root cause: the injustice of our history. The unspoken and continuing abuse of our forebears.
Imagine Piers, I'll just take your children off you, sack you from your job because I don't like the slant of your nose, oh and kick you out of Pittwater because we don't like you're type up here.
What? You think I should say sorry? Just get on with it, man.
© 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/15/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 |