The NSW Industrial Relations Commission this week awarded safety pay rises of between $10 and $12 per week for workers who haven't received a pay rise through enterprise bargaining in the past 12 years.
The increase, awarded after the Labor Council mounted the case, applies to workers whether they are union members are not
NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the ruling is evidence of the unheralded role trade unions play in improving the living standards of workers, whether or not they are members of a trade union.
Labor Council has asked the Carr Government to introduce free-rider legislation to provide for non-union members to pay trade unions a service fee when they negotiate a pay rise on their behalf.
"This decision has not come automatically; it involved the input of several union officials working for weeks to prepare submission and then travelling to Newcastle to appear before the Commission," Costa says.
"All union members should be looking at their colleagues who are not union members and ask themselves why their fees are subsidising the pay rises of the free-riders.
"The principle of user pays dictates that a service fee should be paid to the union for negotiating these sort of pay rises for non-members".
GST Will Spice up Next Wage Case
Meanwhile, the Labor Council has signalled that next year's State Wage Case will be a more contentious affair, with workers preparing to claim pay rises to match the impact of the GST on work allowances.
Costa says allowances for tools, uniforms and transport will need to be revisited if the costs are to increase by 10 per cent.
"It is an underlying principle that the award system provide allowances to offset the costs as associated with carrying out a job," he says.
"By purporting to absorb these costs into the broader tax system, the government would be undermining this important plank of the award system.
The Sydney Morning Herald's Helen Trinca established the link after Workers Online revealed Australian Contracting Services were vigorously promoting their plan to offer independent contractors through labour hire arrangements.
ACS director David Blight is the son of Graham Blight, president of the NFF which helped fund a High Court Troubleshooters case which provided the legal precedent for the current wave of body hire arrangements which are replacing full-time jobs across the economy
And while the directors claim no link to Troubleshooters, their company rely heavily on the principles of that case, promoting "ODCO Agency Contracting", named after Troubleshooters parent company.
The company proudly offers workers with absolutely no contractual relationship with the company they are placed in, meaning they can bypass workers compensation, superannuation and other legal requirements.
While the current push is focussed on the real estate industry, unions see this as a further push to undermine security of employment and price full-time workers out of the market.
The NSW Labor Council is seeking changes to state industrial relations laws which would tie body hire firms to the pay rights negotiated in the workplace their members are placed. This would undermine much of the attractiveness of this type of arrangement.
by Zoe Reynolds
MUA national secretary John Coombs has called for murder charges to be laid against employers who knowingly expose their workers to life-threatening situations.
"Just as we successfully used the conspiracy laws to deal with the Patricks dispute, now it's time to look at the criminal law for safety issues," Coombs says.
The Maritime Union of Australia has obtained a copy of the potentially controversial document which advocates charging company executives with murder or manslaughter.
The report by John Braithwaite, Peter Grabosky and Brent Fisse, June 1986, advised the then state government that without a high profile, 'showcase prosecution' where rogue companies would continue cutting corners and ignoring safety standards at the cost of life and limb. Fines were not enough.
"Depending on how much the company is saving by cutting corners on safety," the report says. "It can be economically rational for the the company to ignore the law. Many Victorians remain unaware of the extent of death and injury in the State's workplaces. The use of the criminal sanction, with attendant publicity, will heighten public awareness of the issue..."
The advice, however, was never fully acted upon. And the subsequent conservative state government has, instead, watered down safety legislation so it is almost impossible for employers responsible for serious injury or loss of life in the workplace to be brought to justice. This is what makes the report even more relevant today.
According to its writers the existing law of murder in Victoria is sufficiently broad to include work deaths "arising from the acts or omissions of an employer who possesses the knowledge or belief that death or grievous bodily harm would probably result."
"To be sure, the circumstances necessary to support the framing of charges of murder would be extreme," the report says. "Yet, in the United States and Europe there have been successful homicide prosecutions of corporations and senior executives for health and safety recklessness."
So long as an employer directs an employee to perform a task involving hazardous machinery or toxic substances, without warning of the dangers or providing the required safety equipment, despite being aware that death or serious bodily injury could result, the employer could be convicted of murder.
Where such extreme callousness on the part of the employer" could not be proven the report advocates manslaughter charges instead.
"The distinction between murder and manslaughter in the workplace lies in the employer's awareness of the danger he or she is creating," the report says. "While murder convictions require the offender to know that death or grievous bodily harm will probably result from an act, manslaughter does not..."
So as to ensure the individual managers were convicted, the report stresses the importance of directly notifying top executives of workplace dangers. "There would be a real prospect of proving criminal negligence where an employer has been expressly warned of an obvious danger to life and has failed to rectify the problem despite ample time to do so before the danger has led to someone's death," the report says.
In the case of murder the only punishment in Victoria is life imprisonment - a punishment which cannot be imposed on corporations. But that is not the only reason it is important to hold individual executives responsible for their crimes.
The report argues that prosecuting companies is "highly unsatisfactory given the traditional value attached to individual responsibility as a mechanism of social control."
Convicting a company provides no guarantee that any executive will be held accountable, it says. Corporate representatives are much more likely to fear direct exposure to the criminal justice system.
"The first major case of a chief executive of a company being prosecuted for an occupational health and safety offence could be expected to have a particularly salutary effect," the report says. "Just as chief executives delight in having their photographs in The Financial Review with a caption about the improved performance of their company, all of them would squirm at the prospect of a photograph in The Financial Review as a convicted white-collar criminal."
The Crimes Act could also be used against an employer for injuries. The offence of negligently causing grievous bodily injury (Crimes Act, s26) can easily apply to the workplace.
The report advocates prosecuting employers for this offence in cases where,"but for the fortuity that death has not resulted from severe injury, a prosecution for manslaughter would have been justified".
Given that the current Victorian Government is unlikely to act upon the report, the Maritime Union is seeking legal advice on how the union would be able to instigate a murder charge itself.
Under the laws currently before the State Parliament, the Commission would have the power to look behind contractor arrangements and declare a worker to be an employee, despite their being constituted as an independent contractor.
This would mean they could have entitlements which employees enjoy such as superannuation, workers compensation and leave enetitlements conferred on them by Coimmission order.
The change would be a major blow against the shift towards contractor arrangements to avoid the responsibilities attached to a formal employmnet relationship.
NSW Industrial Relations Miniser Jeff Shaw says he'll be watching the operation of the Queensland laws with interest.
"NSW had the first go at defining a Labor model of IR into the 21st century, now its Queensland turn and we'll be more than interested spectators," he told Workers Online.
Other aspects of the package include:
- allowing "union encouragement" clauses in agreements increasing
- abolising the state Employment Advocate and Enterprise Commissioner
- increases annual sick leave entitlements from one week to eight days
- introduces unpaid materntity leave for casuals.
The NSW Labor Council will approach the Carr Government to improve communication between departments after the Rail, Bus and Tram Union brought the anomaly to light.
RTBU state secretary Nick Lewocki says the union was recently informed of the rationalisation of 25 Goulburn FreightCorp Terminal and were told there were no alternate government positions in the area for their surplus staff.
But less than a week later, the Goulburn Post carried a story that Corrective Services were recruiting staff in Goulburn, leaving the RTBU wondering what sort of effort had gone into finding redeployment opportunities.
"Since the deregulation and break up of the rail industry in 1996, over 2000 rail jobs have been abolished throughout all business enterprises," Lewocki says. "At no stage have management prepared an analysis of alternate employmnet opportunities for surplus employees".
Under state government policy workers who are made redundant are meant to be placed in other public sector jobs where they are available in the region.
Lewocki says the polic is important for the health of regional NSW, to ensure that families hit by economic restructuring are given the opportunity to find alternate public sector work.
The shopfitters were sacked after a Patricks-style company restructure by Metro Shopfitting, a firm which fits out Woolworths and Coles supermarkets (see Workers Online Issue #14), after being told there was no more work available.
Within days they had been replaced by a labour hire firm, paying wages below the enterprise agreement which had covered the site.
The CFMEU placed pressure on the Woolworths chain of supermarkets, organising pickets outside their city stores on two occasions, including a Thursday night sausage sizzle attending by about 200 people. The protest received national media attention, bringing the dispute to a head.
Under the weight of this public pressure Metro was persuaded to remove the body hire labour, reinstate all the sacked workers and finalse a new enterprise agreement which provided for imporved wages and conditions of employment.
CFMEU Construction Division state president Peter McLelland thanked other trade unions for supporting the successful campaign.
"If this had been successful we would have seen a series of similar bushfires throughout the shopfitting industry," he said.
by Dermot Browne
The Community and Public Sector Union says Bureau of Statistics figures show that since 1996, the Howard government has cut 93,900 Commonwealth public sector jobs nationally.
Thirty seven per cent of these job cuts occurred in NSW, despite the fact that NSW now has only 28% of all Commonwealth public sector jobs.
In 1996 NSW had 107,000 of all Commonwealth public sector jobs. At the end of 1998 that figure had fallen to 72,600.
CPSU NSW Branch Secretary Malcolm Larsen said "This is a sickening set of numbers. Like others in the community we are appalled at any job losses, but one really has to question why NSW is being singled out for extra attention."
The cuts have occurred in every Commonwealth agency with the Department of Employment Education and Training, Centrelink, Health, the Tax Office and the ABC suffering the largest cuts.
"What this heartless government still refuses to learn is that these job losses hurt everyone. No only do they hurt the staff who lose their jobs, they also have a negative flow-on effect to the rest of the community, particularly in regional NSW.
"When half a dozen jobs are taken out of a community like Belmont, Warrawong or Lismore, the effects can be far reaching. The local economy is deprived of that income and competition for local jobs becomes even harder." said Mr Larsen.
The CPSU is continuing to work with local community groups to oppose these cuts. For more information contact the CPSU's NSW Branch on 02 9364 3600.
by Paddy Gorman
The two-metre high miners statue was erected by Gordonstone management in 1997 as a tribute to the workforce for breaking a succession of world coal production records at the underground mine in Central Queensland.
The statue acknowledged the Gordonstone miners as "the world's best coal miners" but became an acute embarrassment less than six-months later when the company illegally sacked the entire CFMEU workforce of 312.
CFMEU Mining and Energy Division General President Tony Maher says the burial of the Gordonstone miners statue as an act of vandalism and called on Rio Tinto to restore it to its former position at the mine.
He's warned : "They may have buried the statue, but they can't bury the truth -- and they won't bury the Union."
The Gordonstone mine remained closed because the Industrial Commission ruled that if it reopened the illegally sacked mineworkers would have preference of employment.
Rio Tinto took over Gordonstone in January this year and has attempted to reopen the mine using non-union labour which has provoked clashes on the Picket Line with more than 250 arrests. Now into its 20th month, the Gordonstone Picket Line is the longest ever in the 200-year turbulent history of the Australian coal industry.
Meanwhile, hundreds of demonstrators braved heavy rain in Perth last week morning to protest against Rio Tinto's abuse of human rights throughout its global operations as shareholders filed into the company's Annual General Meeting.
Inside the AGM, 90% of the questions raised by shareholders were critical of the world's largest mining company's financial performance and policies in regard to its links with human rights abuses; its failure to honour international labour conventions; its continued environmental destruction; and its deteriorating record on health and safety.
Despite the concerns which dominated the meeting, Rio Tinto chairman Robert Wilson refused a request to make a transcript of the AGM available.
The request was made to allow a large number of shareholders and stakeholders throughout the world (who could not attend) to be able to know what the directors reported and to hear the shareholders' concerns at the AGM.
Tony Maher, attended the AGM and condemned Rio Tinto's refusal to make the proceedings of the AGM publicly available.
"Rio Tinto claims its has a policy of transparency so what is it afraid of? It is no big deal these days to post the transcript on the Internet or indeed to make copies available to its shareholders and other interested parties."
"What is Rio Tinto trying to hide? Why won't it come clean?"
Tony Maher warned that the CFMEU, and the 20-million strong international union to which it is affiliated (the ICEM), will continue to work with human rights, indigenous and environmental organisations to campaign for Rio Tinto to accept UN international standards at all its operations.
by Mikael Kjaerby
LHMU research officer Aaron Magner says some employer are attempings to take away basic conditions such as paid lunch breaks, Rostered Days Off and part-time loadings.
"After more than one year of negotiations, employers say they can only pay a small wage increase of 2.5% if child care workers agree to give away hard won conditions," Magner says.
A 2.5% pay rise is worth $10.35 per week before tax on average (for a CCW Step 4 child care worker). NSW child care workers haven't received a wage rise since July 1997.
A recent meeting of child care delegates endorsed the ongoing campaign for better wages and conditions.
A campaign kit and other material have been prepared and is available from LHMU organisers.
One of the lowest paid professions
"The LHMU believes that child care workers deserve substantially better wages and improved conditions. The recent NSW Government inquiry into pay equity has backed up this view, finding that child care work and qualifications are undervalued," Aaron said.
"Wages and conditions do not reflect the value and contribution of child care to the Australian community. This is despite the high demand and value placed on child care by parents and the ever increasing number of new profit based centres."
LHMU said that about 45% of child care workers earn between $10 and $13 per hour. Over 35% earn less than $10 per hour and only 18% earn more than $13 per hour, making child care one of the lowest paid professions in Australia.*
Get Active and win
Child care workers Vanessa Gramatkovski and Jan Crombie (pictured) believe they deserve a better deal.
"Employers are offering very little, yet they want us to give up a lot," said Vanessa. "That's not fair."
Jan said Union members 'need to get involved in the campaign. If we don't get active, we won't win.'
by HT Lee
The East Timor Mercy Ship project will carry emergency supplies such as food, medicines, clothes and tents for displaced Timorese refugees.
The ship will also have on board doctors, nurses, priests, nuns, politicians, unionists and other volunteers--their presence will help to make it more difficult for the pro-Indonesian militia to use violence to intimidate Timorese during the crucial move towards independence.
The patron of the project is Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jose Ramos Horta. It is supported by organisations such as the Mary MacKillop Institute for East Timorese Studies.
During World War II 60,000 East Timorese sacrificed their lives protecting and helping Aussie troops--it's time to repay the debt.
The NSW Labor Council is supporting this project and encourages all affiliates and unionists to participate.
Summer clothes such as cotton T-shirts, trousers and women's clothes are urgently needed as well as donations for the project.
Send your donations to: 'AFAP/East Timor Mercy Ship' POBox 12 Crows Nest 2065.
For further info ring Dr Vacy Vlazna (02) 9948 7043 Email: mailto:[email protected]
by Aaron Patrick
This first day of June saw the return of the group dubbed by the far-Right as the centre of a ``worldwide political conspiracy''.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa spoke to a group of Fabian members at Parliament House on factionalism in the Labor Party.
Essentially arguing that factions lead to a distortion of democratic processes, Costa suggested all ALP members should be forced to undergo political training course when joining the party and refresher courses every few years.
`That could wipe out branch stacking overnight,'' he said. Unions should not cede greater power to the party's branches without them first reforming their own structure.
While acknowledging the membership base of unions was dimishing, he said they remained attractive to many working people and would revive themselves if run in a professional, modern manner.
The decline of factionalism within the Labor Council itself over the past 10 years was an example of that, he said.
The Fabian Society's next speaker will be state pollster John Utting, who will talk about leassons to be learnt from the last state election in late July.
For details contact Aaron Patrick, 02 9365-1132.
The unlikely trio will be at the 87th session of International Labour Organisation where policies on labour standards are discussed and set.
Of particular interest in this session are sessions on child labour and maternity protection at work.
Both these issues are on the Carr Government's agenda, with a Department of Community Services working party currently looking at child employment and a pre-election promise by Shaw to give casual workers access to maternity leave.
For Reith, who has attempted to dismiss the importanc eof ILO standards and currently has a critical ILO report out against his Workplace Relations Act, it should be a particulalry interesting experience.
Stand by for reports on the trip from Jeff and Arch (but maybe not Reithy) in future issues of Workers Online.
Thanks to Workers Online for printing my article on indigenous rights. However, your introductory sentence requires some comment.
Your statement: "Australia's treatment of its indigenous people is a problem that won't go away" raises two issues.
Firstly, many indigenous people do not accept the description 'Australia's indigenous people'. The language can imply ownership, possession, even acceptance of conquer and domination, of one culture over another. The assumption underlying such language is that of a society operating from a non-indigenous perspective -a white default.
Secondly, the issue central to the piece is one of equality and its yardstick. The 'problem' is not indigenous peoples entitlement to human rights and equality, the 'problem' is the Federal Government's failure to deal with the issue. Hopefully through action, the issue will 'go away' because the government will be forced, finally, to provide the justice to which indigenous people are entitled.
I know Workers Online would be at one with me on that, but I believe the importance of the issue requires that it not be left open to interpretation. For these reasons, the language of the introductory sentence is not that which I would agree with or use.
In unity
Tony Morison
Eds Note Another glitch was discovered in our presentation of Tony's piece. Unfortunately the hard copy wouldn;t print out. We'll re-publish his story next week ...
I guess we all worry that our youg ones are going to turn bad and vote Liberal when they grow up.
Our fears have been lessened in the case of Jack, our 4 year old. Crashing cars together on the verandah, he explained that it was robbers.
"Who are the robbers, Jack?"
We expect to have to do a bit of social education at this point but he is way ahead of us.
"John Howard, of course".
It will be interesting to hear how he judges Meg Lees.
Michael Bourchier
In reference to Dr Beverley Symons article in Workers Online No 14 21st May, 1999, regarding the Women's Employment Board (WEB) established by the Curtain Government and empowered to award pay rates to women recruited into male dominated industries during World War 2.
Dr Symons incorrectly believes that WEB granted equal pay to tram and bus conductresses employed in 1942 for the first time in New South Wales.
WEB gave permission for the employment of women as conductresses, however the Commissioner for Transport, Mr Shoebridge offered to pay them only 90% of the male rate of pay.
At the time there were two Unions, one representing tram workers and the other bus workers.
The New South Wales Secretary of the tram Union, Mr Brock rejected the offer of 90% of the male pay rate and insisted that the women receive equal pay or the Union wouldn't agree to their employment.
There was opposition to their employment by the New South Wales Secretary of the bus Union Mr Bagnell.
In spite of Mr Bagnell's opposition the rank and file of the Unions voted in favour of the employment of women as conductresses and agree with Mr Brock that they should receive equal pay.
So it was the Union that achieved equal pay for the women in 1942 and not the WEB.
Yours Sincerely,
Pat Ryan,
Divisional President,
Bus and Tram Division
Rail Bus and Tram Union
by Peter Lewis
The book's been out about four months now, have you been happy with the reception?
I've been rapt. In the media it was great because there wasn't an obsessive focus on one issue. Almost all the issues I raised got a guernsey somewhere and; over all, they focussed on the issues rather than interpreting it as an attack on the leadership or other ridiculous spins that the Liberals tried to put on it. Inevitably there's been some criticisms and that doesn't disturb me. I've spoken to heaps of forums about the issues and overall I'm pleased it's contributed to sparking up a bit more debate around the place. The online chat-room we set up with the book is going really well too. It's hard to keep up with all the issues, but there's a lot of really good ideas being generated there.
There was a time when politics was regarded as a place where ideas were formulated and fought; you and Mark Latham have felt compelled to go into print to get your ideas heard. Is that an indictment of the way modern politics operates?
I don't think so. If you go back to 1982, two shadow ministers put out books, Barry Jones with "Sleepers Awake" and Mick Young with "I Want to Work". So it's not an unprecedented move. We're in an unusual situation at the moment: it's a really exciting time; we're seeing massive transformation occurring in our economy and most western societies; people are struggling to understand what's going on; and there's enormous conflict and difficulty dealing with the impact of these structural changes. Also, you're getting more and more politicians writing pieces in opinion pages than even five years ago, so politicians are tending to be arguing their views, and not just the party line, in the media. So the books are part of a broader trend.
Both you and Latham have been criticised in the House for bringing up new ideas. Is it difficult to be in that forum and to be trying to generate original ideas?
There are inevitably some difficulties; but people get unduly carried away with what goes on in Question Time. The fact that Peter Costello makes a crack about book clubs isn't going to hurt the Labor Party, indeed the vast majority of voters never hear it. I very deliberately put my book out after the Federal Election and did everything I could to ensure that the risks associated with expressing those ideas was minimised and I don't believe that it's done the Labor Party any damage at all.
What would be the one sign from the Labor Party in terms of its policy formulation that would send you the message that they've listened to what you are saying?
That's a difficult question to answer because I don't have particular obsessions. I think something like water and areas like communication and immigration -- there are a number of different themes that I'm quite passionate about so I'd be reluctant to nominate any one theme as the litmus test.
But surely there are issues where political parties make decisions on which path they'll go down ...
It does in some circumstances, but in many cases it's a question of degree, it's a question of priority, it's a question of emphasis. In some of these issues we can say we're giving them a high priority but in practise we are only doing fairly modest things. Or alternatively, we can actually increase the intensity and focus, put more resources in, and really get serious about it. Now that's a question of degree. Using the water example, clearly we're in favour of more efficient use of water, best practise technology for irrigation, conserving our water resources and improving the environment of the Murray-Darling basin. The real test is not whether we have those objectives, the real test is how serious we are, how much effort we put into it, how much resources we put it in. It's really not up to me to be going around setting tests for anybody and I don't pretend that anything that I've put forward has that "we have got to do this now" sort of compulsion to it.
But you have advocated a shifting of the signposts for Labor policy: the opening out, the embracing of the new technologies, not resisting globalisation but trying to harness it; how far down that track do you think current Labor policy was at the 1998 election?
I think it's hard to describe in those terms. We had a fundamental constraint at the 1998 election that there was really no way around. We had only been out of government for a couple of years and the period leading up to that election was always going to be about consolidation. Our room to move on innovative policy development was very restricted because the simple question from your average voter was always going to be: well, if you're ideas are so brilliant, you've just been in government for 13 years, why didn't you do anything about it? So, we were never going to be in a position to come up with big, sweeping, visionary changes to policy in that period. There were some significant policy initiatives in spite of that, but mostly it was period of consolidation. I think the onus is now on us much more. We're at the stage of building the new policy direction, so the real test for me is what will we take to the next election and how innovative will it be?
This may sound like a shadow finance minister, but I also think we have to measure the political strength of our election commitments much more by their creativity and innovation and much less by dollars. When you look at our policies going to the next election you should be asking more: what innovate new ideas do we have to tackle problems and to do things and less: how much extra money are we going to put into that particular bucket?
Isn't that just convenient for a fiscal budget line?
No. I think the classic illustration of this was the power privatisation promise by the NSW Liberals before the state election. People who run around promising extra money when there doesn't seem to much underneath it, no logic, no rationale, no innovative way of dealing with a situation or a system, are actually going to lose votes; because they'll be seen as having no new ideas and as being economically irresponsible. I don't oppose spending money in new areas, but the focus must be on political innovation rather than cheque-book politics.
One area where a lot of corporate money is going at the moment is the development of the Internet, particular by the big media companies. There's a lot of talk about the Internet being a tool for the future, but what about Internet media policy. Do you have ideas on that?
I think we need to embrace the information economy and understand it's dynamics and go with it. Australia's got a terrible history: we were late into TV, we were late into colour TV, we were late into FM radio, we were late into cable TV. We have this history of protecting established interests, imposing constraints on consumer choice, mandating technologies, all these things that I think are the wrong way to go. We should take a very different approach to the opportunities the new technologies are presenting. Australia is superbly positioned; the penny hasn't dropped for many people yet, but for the first time in our history we are well positioned to be the world leaders of the emerging dominant form of economic activity. We are already significant exporters of education material, software, rock music, internet content. Despite the efforts of Liberal governments we still have pretty good education systems, engineering, infrastructure and the like. Distance will no longer matter, when in all forms of economic activity in the past it has been a dominant issue. English is our main language, but we have incredible cultural diversity which is great for our basic creativity. Because we're a young nation and quite an adaptable nation, we're ideally suited to this new environment. And it shows: after the US, on all measurements of IT take up, we come second.
So where do you reckon the political debates on the Internet will centre? Where do the differences between Labor and Liberal or Right and Left fall?
Some of those are yet to emerge. There's some very interesting issues about privacy for example. I noticed there's a book put out in the States recently with a guy arguing that the notion of privacy should be abolished altogether, that data tracking will wipe it out and we should learn to live with it. That's a frightening prospect, but it is an indication of the types of debates beginning to emerge. You've got questions of copyright and defamation, which all will come back to some basic values. Another issue we have to grapple with is Internet porn and how you deal with the attempt to impose a censorship regime based around movies and books around a medium which is far less controllable.
In may respects, the axis of the debate will be modern versus tradition, it's going to be optimist versus pessimist, adventurer versus risk-adverse. My argument is that Labor has to be the positive force in Australian politics. We win on optimism, we win on pursuing new ground, pursuing new ideas. If we are to adopt a stance which is reactive and defensive on these things, then we miss a tremendous opportunity economically for the country and politically for the Labor Party. So I think we have to take a very positive attitude; there's a whole lot of complex issues, but we have to get in there. And this is John Howard's Achilles Heel, John Howard oozes 1950s, he oozes fear of the future, he oozes the desire for the certainties of the past and that is a huge problem for him. If we are to beat Howard we've got to hit him where it hurts.
Does it concern you that people like the young Packer and Murdoch have already spent an estimated $100 million developing Internet strategies and that by the time the progressive forces of politics wake up to this phenomenon, it may be locked up in the hands of a few wealthy young men?
The concentration of power in the Information Economy generally is a concern. But one of the great things about the new technology is that barriers of entry are dropping dramatically. Your efforts are a very good example; you're running something that will reach the sort of people that a specialised newspaper with semi-mass distribution in the past. You are doing this on only a fraction of the cost of a hard-copy publication. And so although there will inevitably be big players and small players, the really important things about the new technology is that it is driving diversification; because barriers to entry are dropping. The US is a good example, the stories broken over the Internet by Matt Drudge about Monica Lewinsky; inevitably the share of the total market of the free to air TV stations and traditional newspapers occupy is going to drop,. It's dropping already. Traditional newspapers have dropped 25 per cent in the last 25 years and will continue to drop. With the free-to-airs, the signs are there of the inevitable decline in their strength, although the expansion of the market will ensure that they will remain fairly strong institutions, But they won't have the dominant position in people's minds and information intake that they once had. It will take a while for that transition to occur, but it will occur. So yes, I am concerned about concentration and ownership, but the new information market with interactive media and the Internet will be a lot harder to dominate. You no longer need to own millions of dollars of printing presses and TV studios to be a significant player.
It makes it harder for politicians as well. You just can't whack out a press release and expect your message to end up in everyone's lounge room, can you?
That's right. but it also opens up tremendous opportunities. One of the things I think we really have to learn to do, and I've started with the chat page connected to my book, is using this technology to communicate with people in the community outside of election periods. As politicians we have only done this through one-way mechanisms in the past. We go to the mainstream media through the press release and the papers and stations pump the information out. Secondly we work through interest groups, for instances, if we want to communicate with non-English speaking background people we go to the Ethnic Communities Council. But the mechanisms coming back the other way are extremely rudimentary; you can write a letter to your local MP, or write a letter to the Minister and you might get a reply in three months time. There is a tremendous opportunity opening up with the new technology to turn that dialogue into something more genuine and continuous, because the traditional mechanisms reach fewer and fewer people.
But supposing people take up that challenge, how could you possibly cope with the volume of information you'd inevitably get
Partly it's a priority thing and a resources thing. The average Minister's office in my observations tends to treat dealing with public inquiries and correspondence as a necessary evil and an add-on responsibility. Partly the answer is to turn that role in each office into a priority so you have systems in place and staff and resources that assume a large proportion of your work will be dedicated to ongoing communication with the general public.
In you book you mention ALP branches in cyberspace, how far off do you think that is?
There's only one thing stopping it and that's the attitude of people within the Party. I think one of the things that really comes through to me from the chatroom is that if you established an ALP branch in cyberspace, you'd have 30 new members in a week. Provided you did it well and factored in occasional face-to-face sessions, you could do it.
What would be the implications for branch stacking?
Well, none I'd say, because ultimately a person's right to vote in internal ballots would be dictated by their residence. The reality of life for the Labor Party at the moment is that a pretty large proportion of members do not participate in local branches; some have been branch stacked and they're not interested, others are too busy or don't want to go out at night, or they fund the branch boring. You give people more choice and more options and in terms of internal party ballots they'll still get one vote and nothing much changes. You could argue that if reforming these branches led to more genuine members then the bar to branch stacking goes up. The primary reason why branch stacking occurs is because there are not enough real members so the reward you get from putting in 50 stacked members is fairly high. If you've got a federal electorate with 1000 genuine members then it's pretty hard to branch-stack that because you've got to put in a lot of members. So I would argue these reforms would have their own in-built mechanisms for reducing branch stacking.
Finally: the future of the union movement in your Open Australia. Will they be there and what will they look like if they are?
Unions will be there and although I don't see unions suddenly turning the curve back upwards and representing half the workforce, I think they will continue to represent a substantial proportion . I think it will require a lot of adaptation, and a lot has already occurred. I think one step is to move away from the conscript mentality, where the union was this organisation that went around telling its members what to do. I think a lot of that change has already occurred. That was an obsession with me and my union, to get to the stage where the members were the decision-makers, not just electing people every three or four years. We made it a standard rule that any decision about industrial action or whatever, was a decision by the members by majority vote. The union's role was to advise, to lead, to negotiate, but ultimately the decision was always with the members.
There's been a culture change in that direction in the last 10 to 15 years and I think the notion of servicing members as individuals as well as members of a group is emerging. It's not easy to be a union official in the current circumstances and there are still a lot of ugly things threatening, but provided the union movement continues that process of adaptation , while maintaining focus on traditional objectives: bargaining collectively, ensuring the industrially weak get looked after, that people are protected from the risks of working life, I think unions will still play a pretty substantial role in Australian society.
by Louise Tarrant
Professor Margaret Hallock, Director of the Labor Education and Research Centre in Oregon, gave a presentation to a TUTA forum in Sydney on May 28 as part of a brief visit to Australia.
According to Professor Hallock there are some very important lessons Australian unionists can draw from the experiences and recent histories of our US union counterparts.
"You go into most US union workplaces and talk to union members today and they'll tell you they're concerned about what's in their contract, their conditions at work...they think the union is a junior attorney going to ride in on a horse. They buy this third party concept - insurance agency concept. This is still very widespread in the US."
According to Hallock it is the creation of this phenomenon that helped spell the dramatic decline in US unionism and it will be redressing this situation that will see its turn around.
Only a few decades ago US unionism had a 45% density rating and had a proud history of activism and struggle. It's now hovering around 14%. So what has gone wrong?
Hallock cites economic factors as the drivers of change:
"In a very short space of time we made a deal with employers and got sucked into an employer by employer relationship - we bargained on a workplace by workplace level and if you do that what is our membership going to be concerned about? Their wages, their contract and all the effort gets focused into negotiating, resolving workplace problems, handling grievances at the workplace."
Bill Fletcher, head of AFL-CIO's Education Department, (AFL-CIO is the US equivalent of the ACTU), talks about this as the Graveyard of Industrial Capitalism period where if unions made a deal with capital, that if they just bargained with them one on one, employers would get industrial peace and unions and unionists would get a share of the pie.
And indeed unionists are much better off than non union working people in the US. For wages alone a 30% plus differential exists between a union and non-union hourly rate of pay.
However the result of this site by site bargaining focus was twofold according to Hallock:
� On the one hand it created a very inwardly looking union membership and attributes this as the reason why unionised workforces were so easy to pick-off during the years of economic restructuring. In this context the rise in contingent, precarious work and casualisation and the international trade agreements implementation were all part of an overall deunionisation strategy.
� Secondly, it undermined US unions' ability to set wages for a whole industry and in so doing take wages out of competition. Prior to this US unions had what they called a 'whip-saw' tactic whereby the winning of a good agreement was moved through an industry (similar to our concept of pattern bargaining). Prolonged use of this tactic saw a withering of Employer Associations and an entrenching of the employer by employer strategy to such a point that the employers now have the upper hand through 'reverse whip-sawing' and the pursuit of concession bargaining.
"We are battling with a corporate agenda on its way around the world - that's our main export - the US management model.
Decentralisation and trying to get unions to pay attention only to workplace problems, I think, was the death knell for our union movement. We're trying to switch that around but it is by no means a done deal" Hallock reported.
So what is the fightback agenda?
Hallock calls it the transformation process - the movement from service unionism to organising unionism - a process of quite fundamental change. To understand that change and its lessons for our own movement it is important to be clear on the difference.
The service model union operates as a third party, where 'someone else' is going to solve members problems. It is essentially an insurance model - it is not a membership based approach.
The organising union has two very different but distinctive features:
� it's about building the union from within - as Hallock describes it: "To do servicing through a mobilising approach where you get workers involved in solving problems", and
� growth through taking on whole new workplaces with no members and organising them.
Hallock was asked whether the servicing and organising approach weren't just two ends of a spectrum and it was simply a matter of determining where unions wanted to move to in that spectrum. Her response was unequivocal. These were two different models and you had to choose between one approach or the other - this didn't mean under the organising model that servicing and grievance handling didn't occur - but rather it's how its done.
"Every action we take has to be assessed against 'does this build the union' and if you're providing a service I challenge you - does this build the union, does it create more power for the members, does it really build the organisation?
There is a way to do servicing through a mobilising approach that empowers members. That is what the organising model is.
The key is how you do these services - yes we need to do contracts, yes we've got to resolve grievances. We would not exist if we didn't do them but how you do these things is really the central question and every service action has to be assessed against the critical question - does this build the union?"
But to do this Hallock recognises that fundamental organisational change is required otherwise organising is simply layered on top of grievance handling. One of the real challenges is how to change the way grievances are handled.
A number of models were cited ranging from the specialist approach where a small number of staff looked specifically after individual grievance functions and the centralisation model where members only dealt with stewards (if not in their own workplace then as allocated) to resolve low order grievances. Both models have a shared end point - to free up organisers to actually organise.
Obviously critical to the devolution of this function, at least in part, to the workplace is how effective, educated and understanding is the delegate. Member education about why such a shift is necessary and delegate education to ensure their confidence and capacity to undertake such tasks is critical.
Hallock cites this issue of member education as the first most critical step to address in the transformation process - "you have to have membership support - vision from the top is necessary but not sufficient." A number of US unions have gone down this path of transformation and have taken this debate to their memberships and have won support for change.
Hallock also concedes that in the transformation process over the last decade or so many alleys have been gone down in trying new approaches and new organisational structures and some have been dead ends. However US unions have learnt from these experiences and many are moving forward having radically changed the way they do business. It is from these unions that Australian unionists can learn much.
If we ignore the important parallels in our movement's recent histories and fail to learn from US unions attempts at transformation then, as Hallock so neatly puts it:
"If we don't change our direction we're likely to end up where we're heading."
by David Chin
Discouraging "free-riders" is essential to give meaning and practical effect to the concept of freedom of association.
The proposed amendment of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to provide for such a service or agency fee is one of a raft of industrial reforms which Labor Council is advocating (see previous articles in Issues 6, 11 and 12 of Workers Online).
The proposal involves enabling union negotiated enterprise agreements to contain a provision requiring non-member employees covered by an agreement to pay fees at the same level as a contribution for union membership during the life of the agreement. It is envisaged that such a provision would have to be voted on and supported by a majority of the employees to be covered by the enterprise agreement.
Critics of this proposal will no doubt argue that requiring non-members to pay a fee to unions will offend the principle of freedom of association. This is a familiar refrain used by opponents of all forms of union security or preference measures. However, this appeal to a universally accepted principle to justify free-riding is both superficial and simplistic.
Free-riding is not tolerated in the commercial sector. No one, for example, expects the NRMA to provide road service to non-members. Similarly, there is no justification for making unions provide industrial services to non-unionists.
The right to freedom of association , including the right to form and join trade unions is an internationally recognised human right. United Nations International Covenants and various International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions enshrine this right.
The right to freedom of association is meaningless if it does not carry with it a right to effectively pursue the very activities for which the association was formed. In the case of trade unions, this means that unionists must be free and able to pursue legitimate industrial aims through collective bargaining.
In the context of an anti-union federal labour law system, the problem of non-members free-riding on the industrial gains of unionists very seriously threatens the ability of unions to pursue its aims. If non-members continue to be free to enjoy material gains won by unions without having to contribute in any way, the lack of incentive to join threatens to undermine the bargaining strength of unions. For collective bargaining to work, employees must be confident that enough others will cooperate and join with them in the union to make their contribution in union dues worthwhile. This confidence is undermined by a system that provides an incentive to employees to not join a union.
The Industrial Relations Act states that enterprise agreements cannot be made to apply only to union members (section 30(2)). Therefore non-union members employed in an enterprise unavoidably benefit from union negotiated agreements. There is an incentive for such employees to refrain from joining a union because they will reap some of the rewards of membership regardless, especially in the form of increased wages through enterprise agreements.
A Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission recently examined a related but different proposal for enhancing union security involving a union "members only" award application by the Health and Research Employees Association (Re Hospital Employees HREA Members (State) Award (1997) 75 IR 7). The application was turned down by a majority decision, with two of the four judges (Vice President Cahill and Justice Peterson) taking the view that an award which applied only to union members was a method of encouraging union membership which lent "towards a level of practical compulsion", and so was contrary to the Act (President Fisher and Commissioner McKenna both disagreed with this view).
Unlike the international instruments referred to above, the Industrial Relations Act does contain an express prohibition against compulsory union membership (section 209(2)).
However, no employees will be compelled to join a union under this proposal; and the proposed ballot to precede any such requirement gives the process added democratic legitimacy.
The Principles for the Approval of Enterprise Agreements developed by the Commission in December 1996 already encourage participation and consultation of all groups of employees in the negotiation process.
Under the proposed scheme, non-members will retain their right to not join a union. Those employees will merely be made to contribute to a process from which they ultimately benefit. It is a contribution which should be seen simply as the price to be paid for exercising their right to not join a union in the context of a system which cannot afford to carry free-riders. After all, there is a cost attached to the positive right to join a union in the form of membership dues. Why should non-members be exempted absolutely from any cost in exercising their right to not join a union?
Union service fees would promote the principle of freedom of association by assisting union members to pursue more effectively the collective activities for which their association was formed.
ARTICLES
* Julia Mart�nez: Questioning 'White Australia': Unionism and 'Coloured' Labour, 1911-37
* Robert Tierney: Racial Conflicts in the Australian Automotive Industry in the 1950s : Production Line Workers, the Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation and Shop Floor Organisation
* Sue Taffe: Health, the Law and Racism: the Campaign to Amend the Discriminatory Clauses in the Tuberculosis Act.
* Marjorie Theobald and Donna Dwyer: An Episode in Feminist Politics : The Married Women (Lecturers and Teachers) Act, 1932-47
* Graham Willett: 'Proud and Employed' : The Gay and Lesbian Movement and the Victorian Teachers' Unions in the 1970s
* E.R. Macnamara: White Cards/Black Feathers : the Political Gets Personal - Broken Hill, 1915
* Bernie Brian: The Mudginberri Abattoir Dispute of 1985
* Erik Eklund: 'Intelligently Directed Welfare Work'?: Labour Management Strategies in Local Context : Port Pirie, 1915-29
HERITAGE REPORT
* Frank Bongiorno: The Pumphouse : Peoples History Museum, Manchester
RESEARCH REPORT
* Lucy Taksa: Technology, Work, Gender and Citizenship at the Eveleigh Railway Workshops Precinct : an Historical Interpretation of Landscape, Identity and Mobilisation
CONFERENCE REPORT
* Julie Kimber: On the Waterfront : Union Gains and Struggles 1890-1998
ADDRESS
* Jim Macken: "The Great Labour Movement Split in NSW : Inside Stories"
REVIEW ARTICLE
* Verity Burgmann: "The Point of Change" and the Health of Labour History
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
The journal, Labour History, is published on a non-profit basis by the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History with some assistance from the Faculty of Economics at the University of Sydney.
The current issue is available for $30aud to non-members; but at a special rate of $13.50aud if it is sent with a subscription for 1999/2000.
Subscriptions for the coming year 1999/2000 are due on July 1,1999. Two issues are produced per annum and financial members/subscribers receive issue 77 (November 1999) and issue 78 (May 2000).
The full rate for individual subscribers is $40aud for Australian residents; $48aud for New Zealand residents; and $53aud for other overseas subscribers. Concession rates are available for students, unwaged etc. $30aud Australians and $36aud for New Zealanders.
Rates for institutions are available on application.
Overseas recipients automatically receive the journal by air. It is possible to pay subscriptions by Visa, Mastercard or Bankcard: please send for a form.
Please make cheques in Australian dollars payable to Labour
History and mail to: Labour History, Institute Building H03, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia
E-mail: mailto:[email protected] or mailto:[email protected]
If you have any enquiries regarding articles and other
contributions to the journal, please contact the editor, Greg Patmore on mailto:[email protected]
Dr Gregory Patmore
by John Passant
Ten years ago, late in the evening of 3 June and into the morning of 4 June, Chinese tanks and troops stormed Tiananmen Square, killing thousands of occupiers. The demonstrators only crime had been to campaign for democracy.
The death of Hu Yaobang sparked the revolt. Hu Yaobang was a reforming leader who lost power in 1987 for being "too soft" on student demonstrators. 150,000 students went to hiss funeral demanding his posthumous rehabilitation. The calls widened to include demands for democracy and an end to corruption.
The movement grew rapidly and after a period of unrest throughout the country students and workers occupied Tiananmen Square. The Square became a focus for the democratic and working class movements in China.
The movement was not just a student one. John Gittings is a China expert and writes for the Guardian newspaper in the UK.
He described the ferment in the month before the massacre thus: "Beijing in May 1989 was a city transformed. In the streets there was a sense of comradeship mixed with excitement that so many people - workers and ordinary citizens - had found their voices. The [government] seemed paralysed and the streets belonged to the masses."
After a month of unrest, the Government on 19 May tried to reassert order. Prime Minister Li Peng declared martial law and ordered troops into Beijing to clear the protesters.
He failed.
70,000 workers in the city's Capital Iron and Steel works went on strike. The Underground workers cut the power off and halted the progress of the troops.
Workers and students built barricades around the city. The barricades were designed not to stop the soldiers but to slow their progress. This meant ordinary Chinese people could argue with the soldiers and get them to join the revolt.
Many soldiers did join the workers and students. Beijing was on the brink of revolution. One eyewitness at the time described how "for 48 hours now the city of Beijing has been entirely in the hands of the people."
5 million people were on the streets of the capital. They were in charge. Everywhere people sang the Internationale as a symbol of their commitment to a better world and to mock the false socialism of their rulers.
Workers began to organise a general strike. Student leaders argued against it, saying it was not in "the national interest." The students won the argument, and there was no general strike. The moment of insurrection was lost.
The hard-liners in the Government seized their chance. Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng sacked Zhoa Ziyang, who sided with the demonstrators. They then ordered the brutal attack on the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square.
The hard-liners knew that the democracy movement was a challenge to the rule of the Chinese Communist Party and like all dictators they responded with guns.
John Gittings described the scene: "The tactics were brutally simple. Armoured personnel carriers formed the spearhead while soldiers on foot shot to kill from both sides."
Repression defeated the revolt. But force cannot keep the Chinese people in servitude forever.
The 1989 democracy movement arose out of the very success of the Communist Party's economic reforms. It is the continuing massive growth of the Chinese economy - it has quadrupled since 1979 - which ensures that in the future there will be new and stronger democratic challenges to the rule of the Communist Party.
To paraphrase Marx, the Chinese Communist Party is creating its own gravedigger - the Chinese working class.
The changes to Chinese society have been monumental. When Mao won power in 1949, China was a peasant country. The working class was small, and played no part as a class in the Chinese Communist Party's victory.
The essence of Mao's economic policies was to replicate Stalin and use the state in an attempt to industrialise the country. Under this state capitalism the state is the collective embodiment of capital, extracting surplus from the working class, and dragging the country up by its bootlaces in a crude accumulation of capital.
Historically it appears state capitalism can be quite successful - for a while. Stalin's version turned peasant Russia into a military superpower. But state capitalism outgrows itself, and the ruling "communist" elite, recognising the economic stagnation their model eventually produces, begin to look for new ways of growing.
Thus under Deng Xiaoping the Chinese Government moved away from Mao's Stalinist state capitalism to a guided market economy. According to the World Bank, China's rate of growth from 1990 to 1995 averaged nearly 13 per cent per year, the highest of any country. Although the rates have fallen since then, the estimated rate for 1998 was still 7.8 per cent.
The consequences have been a massive restructuring of Chinese society. The workforce in China today is over 700 million. There are hundreds of millions of workers, many of whom are concentrated in the major cities. In addition, the country now has a thriving middle class and millions of students.
Part of the process of economic reform has involved a shift away from uneconomic state owned enterprises. The US State Department estimates that these enterprises laid off around 5 million workers each year between 1996 and 1998.
Unemployment is officially around 3 per cent although because unemployed state enterprise workers are excluded from the figures, others put it at 8 to 10 per cent in the cities and higher in the countryside.
Ten years after the massacre, with unemployment in urban areas estimated at over 40 million, with corruption endemic, and with the Chinese working class the mainspring of China's growth, the situation is more favourable for the democracy movement now than in 1989.
As the deposed Zhao Ziyang wrote on the eve of President Clinton's visit to China last year, "The trend of democracy cannot be blocked."
There is little faith in the Communist Party. Han Danfong of the China Labour Bulletin has described the massacre as producing a "collective awakening to the bestial nature of the Party."
Han says that the Government has no idea what to do. "As a result, the countdown to an explosion of anger has already begun. Demonstrations of unemployed workers along with others owed months, sometimes years, of back pay are a daily occurrence."
Han argues that the most important component in the move towards democracy is the fight for the establishment of free trade unions. Han says "Independent trade unions are an indispensable part of this impetus to a new society as well as a strong and democratic mechanism for civil society. We might even say that independent trade unions are the key to building a democratic China."
Tiananmen Square was a dress rehearsal for the future. The Chinese working class has a material interest in democracy. It has the strength to overthrow the corrupt and bankrupt butchers in Beijing.
John Passant is an independent socialist
mailto:[email protected]
by Neal Towart
Barbara Pocock and John Wishart have a solid background in union issues and remain at the forefront of academics who are engaging with trade unions in attempts to revitalise and renew their organisational and membership base.
Pocock especially has written and researched a great deal about the role of women in trade unions - how to get them into unions and how to get them involved in running unions, a task she sees as essential for union survival.
The recent research paper Organising our Future: What Australian Unionists Can Learn from US Labour's Fight Back ( Research paper no. 9; Centre for Labour Research, Dept of Social Inquiry, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005) is another example of their seeking out possibilities for renewal. It is accessible to union members with little if any academic jargon and has lots of ideas of varying usefulness to Australian unionists.
With US union membership at around 15 per cent and a completely different industrial system (much more hostile historically to collective organisation, although with the current federal govt, we are trying to catch up) the question has to be asked - why look at the US experience? Pocock and Wishart do ask the question and set out their reasons at the beginning of the study.
Both the Australian and US movements must battle hard for their survival. In the US, with population growth as it is, the unions "must recruit 300,000 new members per year just to stand still, and one million if it is to grow by 1%". In 1997 they managed 385,000 new members, the first time for many years they haven't gone backwards.
However, the good reasons for studying the US, according to Pocock and Wishart, do lie firstly in the numerical size of the movement, with 16 million members. This provides great scope for diverse experiences providing insights in organising and recruitment methods. Also methods of survival in the face of employer thuggery and violence may be important in an increasingly hostile environment in Australia.
The second major reason is the role of the state in the US in directly acting against union organising efforts and strikes. Thirdly the American cultural hostility to collective action and very ingrained individualism which makes getting to first base a real battle. This individualism is an attitude seemingly taking a firmer hold in Australia. The authors insist that it is not part of the cultural cringe to look at US efforts because of the above factors. The US have had a longer term crisis in union membership and have a huge country with many different ways of approaching the problem. We do not have to copy their efforts, but that does not mean that we can't get a few tips and clues.
The paper is organised into ten case studies, all seeking to illustrate various aspects of organising. Examples here include the role of peak bodies (AFL-CIO) in helping individual unions and in diverting more of its budget into organising. Also important to much US organising is getting union community links happening and developing solid political partnerships. Corporate campaigns such as the one at Yale University for union recognition of graduate teachers are a further example. Staff alerted donors to the university about massive fund wastage, boycotted medical services provided by the university, and made direct visits on a individual basis to senior decision makers in the university to air their grievances.
Regional and local issues are an important focus for organising with unions working with community and religious groups in certain communities to develop local area plans. This raises the union profile and has been an important catalyst for the renewal of Labor Councils across the US. With regional areas in Australia often hard hit by large firm closures (eg Newcastle, Lithgow) this campaign focus can provide insights for Australia.
All case studies are well summed up and the lessons the authors see from them are summarised in each section. The authors also emphasis where campaigns have gone wrong, such as the ambitious (for the US) attempt to organise Los Angeles manufacturing workers across all industries rather than on the usual site by site basis.
This is a good read for union activists and those concerned with equity and justice in the workplace and in communities in Australia. We don't have to follow the exact tactics but fresh perspectives are welcome as unions face the challenges of survival and renewal.
It is a matter of historical reference that the Man they called Pelvis was not only rich he was well ......fat. We also know that way before his last fateful night on the tiles Elvis used to be a truck driver and was more than likely a member of a trade union. Some recent surveys have produced statistics, if they are to be believed, that indicate we might soon be overrun by a legion of Elvis's who are fat, non union members
Like me, you would be interested to learn that there exists a whole new industry making it's presence felt in the good old USA. Not being one to stare down emerging employment prospects for retrenched workers I was captivated to learn that Elvis impersonators have a rosy future in the ever changing job market in the land of Stars and Stripes. Recent statistics indicate that if the number of Americans taking up Elvis impersonation as a vocation continues at it's present rate then, in a few short years, every man, woman and child in that country will be turning out of their driveways in a Cadillac dressed in sequined jumpsuits.
That's right, the statistics confirm that should the take-up rate of employment in the Elvis impersonators industry persist there will be over 300 million Elvis's running around in the very near future. And that's just in the US!
Accompanying that image is another foregone reality because I learned the other day that the population in the United States is 'growing' at such a rapid rate that in 30 years time everyone in the USA will be clinically obese. And it's bloody true! All these Elvis's will be waddling into an exploding number of fast food outlets where there will be no need for the sales assistant to wait until you have ordered before asking. "Would you like fries with that, Sir" Their new look customers will bloody well demand their unfettered right to fries and a whole lot more as they squeeze through the door. "I'll have double my usual order and make it snappy 'cos I'm off to see an Elvis tribute show! "
If the statistics continue to hold true then that same hamburger hand will be employed on a casual basis bound by an individual contract and de-unionised. So will the builder whose future employment will be governed by the need to regularly widen everybody's doors-including his own. And everyone will be undercutting each other's wages so that they can work and provide heaps more food for their ever growing families. It's not a pretty picture.
The future, it would seem, is crystal clear-or so the survey companies would have us believe.
Although we in Australia often follow the trends in the USA the future of your employment prospects is not as clear. The aforementioned Mark Textor is an absolute wizard at gathering statistics and, in a stroke of good fortune, we in the FBEU have been targeted to provide his company with some responses to an industrial relations survey he is distributing on behalf of the Office of the Employment Advocate (a government department formed by the statistically union -friendly Minister for Workplace Relations, Peter Reith).
The self evident truth Mr Textor and Mr Reith are trying to create is that unions are irrelevant and the only people remaining in the trade union movement have been heavied, pressured or otherwised coerced to stick with their union.
Given that firefighters in New South Wales do not operate under Federal industrial relations legislation, and being fully aware that it was Mr Textor's polling that saw Kerry Chikarovski installed as the saviour for the NSW Coalition's electoral hopes, you might think that it is Mr Textor who is struggling to find relevance.
Eager to fulfil his contract, and perhaps more eager to collect more of the many millions of dollars of taxpayer's money that Peter Reith has spotted him, a 'survey' landed in my lap the other day seeking responses to a well-weighted set of questions.
Some observers, less kind than me, have suggested that this survey was an exercise in US-style 'push polling'. That is, a survey designed to produce an outcome favourable to those who seek a statistical underpinning for a fact that otherwise cannot be demonstrated. The whole survey could have been condensed into one simple question. How best can we go about de-unionising your industry?
The covering letter made it clear that the survey is targeted at "certain industries". I might suggest that in Reith's cross-hairs are "certain industries" where the Union members have successfully gained good pay rises of late, have improved their working conditions, have healthy job growth, are well informed and organised and where the members as a result are generally responsive to their leadership. Peter Reith believes that the FBEU fits that bill.
Although we may have been found on the roof of most of Sydney's buildings after the last shower it is fair to observe that we certainly didn't come down with it. Nor did we all get hit on the head by cricket balls. Hence the need for push polling.
So what does he want? Peter Reith cannot bear the reality of contented members of a trade union. He prefers not the sweet sound of music but the voice-over at the end. Reith wants to hear the bit that goes "Ladies and Gentleman, Elvis has just left the Union".
Firies will be doing that when we look down and realise we're too fat to see our blue suede shoes.
Darryl Snow is State President of the Fire Brigade Employees' Union
by Noel Hester
'Waugh forces changes to system. Rules gave Australia no choice,' propagandised the Daily Terror in classic Goebbels-speak the next day. The real headline should have been 'Waugh fixes match.'
But wooah, a bit touchy that. We've already been through that one once this year.
The Australians have been let off the hook with the focus on the flaws in the tournament rules. These rules were framed, not unreasonably, with the assumption that elite internationals would be trying their best to win cleanly.
The Australians now look like the dodgy tax accountants of world cricket - looking for loopholes, cooking the figures and totally immoral. All legal but not a good look and lacking in class. (When you think about it Steve Waugh's got the personality of an accountant. Just like Shane Warne's got the personality of a bookie.)
The saddest thing about all this is one day cricket just isn't worth it - even the World Cup. Let's face it - the underarm match was probably the only unforgettable one day game ever. The rest of them just blend together like individual notes in a bad ABBA tune.
Even sadder is what this sort of behaviour does to great cricketers. History despises them. It overwhelms the sublime performances. They are remembered as an embarrassment. Ask Greg Chappell. He (and Australia) still hasn't lived down the underarm skullduggery of TWENTY years ago.
The underarm, the sledging - choo choo - the bookie's weathermen and now winning by wides. There's only one thing left in this spiral from unscrupulous to irredeemable.
Step up Don King, the manager's job is waiting.
Footnote:
Declaration of interest time. I'm a Kiwi. And if they'd done the same thing they'd equally be deserving of contempt.
Organised by ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation), the Forging a New Relationship seminar was held on 2 June during Reconciliation Week, and was attended by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians alike (1967 referendum activist Faith Bandler and NSW Governor Gordon Samuels were among the audience).
The seminar took place in the context of the 10-year lifespan of CAR approaching its end. It was set up in 1991 as one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, with a brief of coming up with a formal reconciliation document which would become law by the centenary of Federation in 2001. The seminar looked at questions of where both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians want to be heading.
The welcome to country was made on behalf of the extinct Eora people by a member of the Dharawul people of La Perouse in absentia.
Keynote speaker Peter Yu, of the Kimberley Land Council, reminded conference delegates that diversity of opinion was just as much an issue within the indigenous community as it was in the rest of the Australian community, and this highlighted the importance of parties working together. He was the first of many of the day's speakers to highlight the fact that reconciliation was a people's movement that would progress no matter what.
The seminar also heard from Dr Sarah Pritchard, who helped develop the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She spoke about the importance of self-determination, and also taking one step at a time.
Former Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Cmn chair Sir Ronald Wilson, who co-authored the Bringing Them Home report into the Stolen generations with former HREOC Social Justice Cmr Mick Dodson, lobbied enthusiastically for CAR's term to be extended a couple more years, so no hasty decisions would be made. He also questioned why we would be voting on a preamble before we even had a new constitution, and urged caution here also.
Sir Ronald spoke in place of Mick Dodson, who was unable to attend. But the week before, at the Friends of Tranby [Aboriginal College] dinner held in Sydney on 28 May, Dodson had spoken of the tolls of leadership. He said while leaders were very rarely born, because they needed the wisdom, courage and humility that generally only comes with life experience, to be born aboriginal was to be born an activist. He said many non-indigenous activists had also joined the reconciliation cause, not because they believed life was about obligation, but rather because it should be about opportunity.
In this, he foreshadowed the draft reconciliation document, which was handed down on 3 June at the Sydney Opera House. The draft will now be open for consultation for the next six months, and CAR expects to hand down a final document next May. Those interested in finding out more can search CAR's website, at www.austlii.edu.au/car/
The draft reconciliation document:
Speaking with one voice, we the people of Australia, of many origins as we are, make a commitment to go on together recognising the gift of one another's presence.
We value the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners and custodians of traditional lands and waters.
We respect and recognise continuing customary laws, beliefs and traditions.
And through the land and its first peoples, we may taste this spirituality and rejoice in its grandeur.
We acknowledge this land was colonised without the consent of the original inhabitants.
Our nation must have the courage to own the truth, to heal the wounds of its past so that we can move on together at peace with ourselves.
And so we take this step: as one part of the nation expresses its sorrow and profoundly regrets the injustices of the past, so the other part accepts the apology and forgives.
Our new journey then begins. We must learn our shared history, walk together and grow together to enrich our understanding.
We desire a future where all Australians enjoy equal rights and share opportunities and responsibilities according to their aspirations.
And so, we pledge ourselves to stop injustice, address disadvantage, and respect the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to determine their own destinies.
Therefore, we stand proud as a united Australia that respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for
For several years, the Daily Telegraph has taken the view that industrial relations no longer exists, so there's no need to assign a reporter to the round. It survived while it had Mark Robinson, a one-time industrial roundsman, in its State Bureau. But since Mark was poached by the Sydney Morning Herald a month ago, there has been no one with a background in the round (apart from Piers in his youth -- and he gave up on factual reporting some time ago).
So when the State Wage Case was handed down on Thursday, the Telegraph did not have any reporter with the experience to do the job. Instead they went for one of the oldest tricks in the book, taking copy from the Australian Associated Press's wire service and running it without accreditation as if it was their own.
Unfortunately, AAP's industrial reporter Dennis Peters was away on leave and a novice had been sent down to the Commission. At the post-decision door-stop he misunderstood comments about the decision from Michael Costa, interpreting calls for free-rider legislation to be introduced (see main news story) as having been part of the Commission's formal decision.
If this were true, it would have been a major story indeed. Within minutes of the story coursing over the wires, TV stations and radio shows were ringing up to check if the AAP report was correct. They were told it wasn't, AAP was contacted and a correction was issued swiftly.
But the Telegraph never called. The incorrect AAP copy went straight onto the front page of the afternoon edition without so much as a query -- complete with the misspelling of the Labor Council.
And so an absolute howler appeared on the front page of the Telegraph's afternoon edition, the NSW Industrial Relations Commission awarding union-only benefits via a State Wage Case. For the people who rely on the afternoon paper for their news, this becomes an unanswered reality.
The point of this story is not to beat up on the AAP reporter who was trying to do a difficult job. It is to illustrate that if a newspaper wants to have an authoritative voice on an issue, it has to be prepared to invest in the personnel to cover it properly. The Telegraph isn't and doesn't; and until they do their credibility for telling the truth to working people will remain zero.
While, they're happy to have Piers using his column for increasingly indulgent attacks on the NSW union movement and a one-dimensional editorial policy that characterises anything the trade union movement attempts as "a return to the bad old days". they can't be bothered covering what has always been a significant round.
If those running the Telegraph do not recognise the link between Piers' monstering of Michael Costa and their State Wage Case blooper, then they should try looking up "hubris" in the dictionary.
***********
Meanwhile, readers of the Australian Financial Review would be aware that Workers Online has been accused of being an enemy of Freedom of Speech.
Columnist Christopher Pearson made the claim while attacking us over the $1,000 bounty we have offered for information leading to criminal charges being laid against our favourite toad. (Not that we expect to find any).
If the term still meant anything, we may be concerned, as it is we wear the accusation with a bemused pride. Here is a copy of our letter to the AFR, which as of Friday, had still not been printed.
"Dear Sir,
Christopher Pearson's argument about Freedom of Speech (AFR May 31) is fundamentally flawed because it fails to recognise that speech in the public arena has never been free -- it isn't even cheap.
The point of offering a bounty on Piers Akerman is not to silence him (God forbid), it is to encourage people to look behind the smiling head-shots of our opinion leaders and ask what they really stand for.
Invoking a principle of Freedom of Speech would be fine if all groups and views had access to the mediums of communication. Unfortunately, though, the Australian media is dominated by a cabal of middle-aged, reactionary men offering a very narrow spectrum of views.
In the same way that the notion of "political correctness" has been used to trivialise issues like racism and sexism; "freedom of speech" is an empty slogan that trivialises the real issue of access to the public domain.
Indeed, the rise of new information technologies offers the best hope yet of opening access to speech in the public sphere. After all, how else would a little left-wing newspaper come to Mr Pearson's attention?
Yours Sincerely,
PETER LEWIS
Editor, Workers Online''
© 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/16/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 |