The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union has asked the Labor Council to meet with SOCOG and Olympics Minister Michael Knight to clear up concerns that production will be sent offshore to low wage countries.
TCFUA state secretary Barry Tubner says employers in the industry have raised concerns that production of uniforms for Games athletes, officials and volunteers is earmarked for offshore.
"This would be an outrageous insult to the skilled clothing workers of Australia if they were denied the opportunity to suitably clothe our sportsmen, upon whom the eyes of the world will be gazing," Tubner says.
"Surely it is not beyond the skills and expertise of our country to at least clothe our sporting heroes in garments bearing the label of reputable Australian manufacturers."
Tubner also warns that such a move would also breach the provisions of the SOCOG Act.
"If these rumours prove to be true, this union will make the Government realise that 'brassed off' was just a little song."
The NSW Labor Council says it will convene an emergency meeting of its Executive to formulate a statewide campaign to draw attention to the federal government's failure to protect the fundamental rights of working people.
And the Council will call on the ACTU to take any campaign onto a national footing to fight for workers like those who lost their jobs at Oakdale mine being owed $6.3 million in unpaid leave entitlements.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the action could include public demonstrations aimed at shaming the federal government, disrupting services to government ministers and industry-wide protest action.
Already the transport and manufacturing unions have flagged they will stop work over the issue, with the Transport Workers Union delegates meeting this week to decide on its response to unpaid entitlements.
The TWU has also launched a nationwide petition calling for immediate legislative reform, with state Secretary Tony Sheldon saying his union is not prepared to tolerate an Oakdale in their industry.
Flashpoint
The union's ultimatum comes as the issue of unpaid entitlements reaches flashpoint, with a string of business collapses leaving retrenched workers out of pocket.
"Australia is the only country in the OECD which does not protect the entitlements of its workers. Even Britain retained protection at the depths of Thatcherism," Costa says
And he says its a disgrace that a meeting of Federal Ministers to discuss the issue and been delayed to facilitate international travel by the Ministers.
"The Prime Minister should immediately cancel these trips and direct his Ministers to return home to deal with this pressing national issue."
Wage Earner Protection Fund
Meanwhile, the CFMEU has backed a "wage earner protection fund" to deal with the issue, with employers' payrolls being levied a small percentage to protect all workers.
CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson says such a scheme was recommended as far back as 1988 by the Commonwealth Law Reform Commission's General Insolvency Inquiry.
While the union has approached Peter Reith to look at the proposal through the Labour Ministers Council, Ferguson believes the Howard Government "will never deliver meaningful reform in this area".
He's proposed the NSW Premier Bob Carr bypass Howard and enter into talks with the Queensland and Victorian governments to investigate a state based protection fund that doesn't put any one state at a competitive disadvantage for taking a moral lead on the issue.
At least one hotel, the Ritz Carlton will be increasing its normal tariff fivefold, with New Years punters facing a $5000 bill for three nights.
Other big hotels are inflating room nights from:
- $215 per night to $1900 for a minimum four-night package (Intercontinental)
- $400 per night to $7250 for a minimum five-night package (Park Hyatt)
- $205 per night to $2000 for a four-night package (Wentworth)
- $240 per night to $2759 for a five-night package (Hilton)
ACTU organiser Troy Burton says these prices are estimates by hotel staff, with most hotels booked out and refusing to state what they will be charging New Years Eve.
Burton says it's only fair that the workers who'll be helping the hotels make these huge one-off profits, should also share some of the benefit.
"The Star City Casino has already agreed to pay its staff a rate equivalent to four times the award rate, recognising the important role they'll be playing and the personal sacrifice they'll be making on the night," he says.
"Employers have to realise that if they try to skimp on staff they may have trouble getting enough people on what will be one of the busiest nights of the years.
Without a special agreement, workers will be expected to work New Years Eve for a flat rate, because it falls on a Friday and is not designated a public holiday.
Preliminary survey results of hospitality workers organised by the LHMU show that 96 per cent of members say they wouldn't be prepared to work on New Years Eve at their ordinary rate of pay. For more survey results see next week's Workers Online
Brits Do Better
Meanwhile, British workers appear to be setting the international benchmark for getting a decent New Years pay, after the Blair Government declared New Years Eve a public holiday.
This has not stoped individual unions securing one-off deals for workers on the night, including:
- BBC journalists a 500 pound payment for working New Years Eve.
- Midland Bank agreeing to a sliding pay scale of up to eight times the base rate between 6pm December 31 and 2pm January 1.
- British Airways paying staff a bonus of 400 pounds or four free flights for working between 10pm and 4am on New Years Eve
- Ereswash Borough Council offering staff triple time plus one week's holiday.
- Three Valleys Water - will give staff a cinema ticket and a meal for two to the value of 150 pounds.
Burton says the British experience shows how employers can be persuaded to do the right thing.
"There is no one size fits all approach, it's up to workers to decide what a fair thing is in their workplace and working together to get it."
The move to replace workers at Qantas Telesales Centre in Sydney with labour hire is seen by the Australian Services Union is an attempt to undercut conditions which were negotiated last year in an enterprise agreement.
The move follows revelations earlier this year that Qantas was planning to foreign nationals from low-wage countries to work as cabin crew for the one-time national carrier.
The latest revelations represent a double blow to more than 300 customer service staff employed in Sydney. First they were informed of their redeployment to Hobart. Then they were told they would lose conditions under the recent EBA, including penalty rates for their round-the-clock shifts.
The ASU has been meeting with Qantas over the redeployment since May, with the company giving them the stark choice of downgrading the EBA or seeing the work put out to body hire.
ASU national executive president Brian Sullivan says it's just another attempt by Qantas management to drive costs down.
"The company is showing no loyalty to the staff," Sullivan says. "When it's a choice between the bottom line or the staff, the dollar wins every time. They accuse of standover tactics, but what is this?"
The ASU is due to meet with Qantas management again next week and is considering legal avenues to resist the body hire push.
Meanwhile, Qantas has announced planned to extend overseas recruitment of cabin crew to New Zealand. This follows the announcement Qantas would employ Thai nationals to be its public face.
And the hearing of unfair dismissals by the LA-6 - cabin crew sacked after being strip-searched at Los Angeles are due to be held in August
The good reputation of a one-time Australia icon is heading for some turbulence.
Normally performers sign a single contract for national tours, providing them with award minimum rates of pay when the production is moving from one state to another.
But the Gordon Frost Organisation, under advice from the Australian Entertainment Employerds Association, has presented the Von Trapps and Co with separate contracts for the Sydney and Melbourne runs which would leave the cast standard without income for up to a month.
Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance state secretary Michel Hryce says the contracts undermine an industry standard and has commenced action in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have the contracts overturned.
In the AIRC this week, deputy preseident Colin Polites heard evidence from performers before stating that the two contracts were a "device purely to avoid the payment of performers during the lay-off period". He also questioned the legality of requiring the performers to sign both contracts simultaneously. The AIRC will reconvene hearings next week if the matter is not resolved.
"The reality is that performers are tied down for the whole tour, it's not realistic to think they could pick up alternate work between the Sydney and Melbourne dates," Hryce says.
Performer Elaine Smith (State Coroner) saysit should not be the actgors' responsibilities to subsidse a producers pre-production operational costs. "Payment to actors for the lay-off period should be part of the production's budget," she says.
The outcome of this dispute has implications across the industry, there are currently eight national theatrical productions in pre-production and the cast of Chicago has commenced a similar campaign.
The Trust has raised the option of Australian Workplace Agreements for about 100 casual workers involved in bush regeneration and for administrative staff.
The threat has been raised as the Australian Workers Union and the Public Service Association attempt to negotiate an award for all National Trust Workers.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the move is a strange way to repay the trade union movement's efforts to protect the State's heritage over many years.
In may cases union members have lost wages by refusing to work on projects which would have damaged heritage properties.
"This is an absolute disgrace," Costa says. "The National Trust must realise that if they expect us to help their campaigns, they should support trade unions."
by CFMEU Construction
There is a building boom in Sydney and Melbourne but more and more of the work is going to body hire firms which have colluded with the big builders to destroy regular jobs.
What began as a temporary top-up labour is now become the norm. Increasingly many builders and sub-contractors see body hire as a way of getting cheap labour through the back door--a way of breaking down hard won conditions.
The spread of body hire threatens workplace safety, job security, award payments and entitlements such as redundancy payments, workers comp, training, annual leave, long service leave and sick leave.
Stop work meetings have been held at selected sites throughout Australia. At those meetings workers have endorsed the campaign to end the abuse of the use of body hire labour.
As a result of the concerted national campaign Multiplex which has not been employing many direct workers lately but had relied on subcontractors has agreed to employ more workers.
Workers to be employed by Multiplex directly includes some of the following classifications:
- first aid attendants
- hoist drivers
- labourers and carpenters performing site safety maintenance and minor works
- dry hired crane crew--specialist subcontractor crane crews will be permitted where they are provided with a crane
- amenities attendants (nippers/peggies) on smaller jobs--on larger jobs Multiplex will be permitted to use specialist cleaning contractor with its own permanent workforce
- traffic attendants (stop/go men) on smaller projects--on larger jobs specialists subcontractor may be used and during the excavation phase earthmoving contractors can supply their own stop/go man.
Multiplex has also agreed to proper regulation of the use of body hire labour which can only be used in genuine short term top up situations--short term peak production problems and unforeseen absences with an absolute limit of four weeks on the use of body hire in any circumstance.
The use of body hire labour by subcontractors will also be monitored to ensure they are not abused.
Subcontractors committed to providing training and career opportunities for their direct workers will get preferences from Multiplex. Other contractors are now negotiating with the union.
Another result of the campaign is some contractors have taken on regular workers when prior to the campaign they were relying on body hire to get their workers.
RSA continues abuse of body hire
Meanwhile the Rail Services Australia (RSA) a NSW State Government-owned corporation once part of the State Rail Authority continues to abuse the use of body hire labour.
RSA has been shedding most of its permanent workers over the past four years and has tendered out its jobs to the lowest bidder. Body hire firms are bidding and winning the jobs.
The body fire firms have not been paying their workers award payment and proper entitlements.
One of the 'preferred' body hire firms Sheridan Plant Hire has been indulging in the unfair dismissals of its workers.
The unions at the recent ALP Country Conference called for strict regulations on the use of body hire labour. But instead of following up the concerns of the unions the RSA continues to abuse the use of body hire labour.
The question that must be asked of Transport Minister Carl Scully is why the government is flouting the genuine concerns of the unions? Isn't it time Scully listens to the workers?
Unions have drawn WorkCover's attention to the "killer skips" amidst fears the high demand for waste disposal is forcing suppliers to provide old and damaged bins.
The CFMEU's Brian Miller and CEPU's Skip Casper (we're not joking!) last week found one bin which was on the verge of collapse, literally falling apart at the seams.
They called in Labor Council's safety watchdog Mary Yaager and WorkCover inspectors to inspect the hazard..
Mary Yaager says she was shocked by the condition of the bin. "If this bin had been loaded onto a truck for transport there was a very real risk that a tragedy could have occurred."
The Labor Council has demanded that the contents of the bin be unloaded and it be replaced with a suitable receptacle which complied with manufacturers specifications. This is an emerging threat in a time of boom building conditions," Yaager says.
"Even the employee from the waste disposal company couldn't believe the bin in question was allowed out of the yard and into the public."
The Labor Council has asked WorkCover to produce a set of guidelines to cover the bins and to issue a safety alert to all building sites warning of the potential danger of the "killer skips".
APHEDA works with many different organisations around the world supporting education, development and relief programs in 12 countries. Study Tours are part of APHEDA's global education program and provide a unique opportunity for APHEDA and trade union members, donors and supporters to experience countries, cultures and development projects hosted by APHEDA project partners.
The main purpose of the tours is to:
- To provide APHEDA supporters with a unique learning experience hosted by APHEDA's project partners.
- To help promote relations between Australia and the communities and countries with whom APHEDA is working.
- To build support for APHEDA's international aid and human rights programs in Australia when participants return.
Tours for 2000
- Vietnam 6th - 18th January 2000. Price $ 3,300* (including airfares, single room accommodation)
- Thai-Burma Border - 19th - 26th January 2000. Price $2,300* (including airfares and single room accommodation)
- The Middle East - Jordan, Palestine, Israel & Lebanon)
May 2000. Price $4,500* (including airfares and twin share accommodation)
(Price includes all travel, accommodation, interpreters, customary gifts, departure taxes and some meals - great value! Departure dates may change by 1-2 days *Approximate costs may change slightly depending on numbers in group).
Get a direct update on trade union, economic, cultural and social changes through tours hosted by APHEDA's project partners in these countries.
For further information and registration of interest, visit the APHEDA website on http://www.apheda.org.au or contact Phillip or Peter at APHEDA on 029 2649343
Nobel Prize winner Jose Ramos Horta and journalist John Pilger will address the meeting, to be held in the Keith Burrows Theatre, University of NSW at 7pm.
For more details call 9690 1032
Mr Tanner has agreed to deliver the keynote address at the 6th National Labour History Conference at Wollongong Town Hall on the Labour Day weekend (October 2 to 4).
Other speakers will include NSW Chief Magistrate and Chancellor of the University of New England, Dr Pat O'Shane, and Professor Eileen Yeo from the University of Sussex.
More than 400 delegates from Australia and overseas are expected to attend the conference organised by the University of Wollongong's Associate Professor (Industrial Relations) Ray Markey.
Professor Markey, the Illawarra branch president of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, which is hosting the event, said organisers were thrilled to have secured Mr Tanner as a speaker.
"He has played a major part in re-thinking the program of the ALP for the 21st Century," Professor Markey said.
"This is consistent with our intentions that the conference should not only celebrate the past, but also contemplate the role of labour and the community beyond 2000".
The conference will be a departure from past events. In keeping with the "community" theme of the weekend, cooperatives, friendly societies, church groups and the business community will be invited to participate along with academics.
"This conference is intended to be a festival - a historic and cultural event in its own right - and we hope that it will be part of a long healing process for the divisions which occur in the labour movement and the community," Professor Markey said.
Planned events include an evening with the Illawarra folk club, performances by labour and union choirs, films, an art exhibition at Wollongong City Gallery, book launches and a workshop on labour heritage and the identification of sites of significance in the region.
The conference has been financed extensively by the University of Wollongong. Other sponsors include the Australian Education Union, Joint Coal Board, NSW Nurses' Association and Croation Democratic Union. The Lord Mayor of Wollongong, David Campbell, also has pledged support.
Media please note: Registration brochures and further details may be obtained by contacting Rob Hood or Julie Chin at UOW's Department of Economics on (02) 4221 4105 or (02) 4221 4156.
NSW Fabian Society is hosting a speech by state party pollster John Utting on Tuesday July 20 at Parliament House, Labor Caucus Room, 6.30pm (enter rear entrance).
The topic is: The political and policy implications of the 1999 NSW State Election for the government and party organisation.
For details contact Aaron Patrick at mailto:[email protected]
In past years there have been three public holidays not counting Saturday & Sunday. Xmas day, Boxiig Day , New-Years Day .This year we get one.
Is this official? Is it only in NSW? did Labor Concil agree to this scrooge act for Xmas? If the Libs. had done it there would be blood in the streets.
If you check Xmas 1993 & you will find that Monday 27/12/93 , Tuesday 28/12/93 & Monday 3/1/94, were public holidays in NSW & other states
Ed's Reply This is an issue unions have raised with the State Government. Watch this space for developments.
by Peter Lewis
You're a young union official working with a predominantly young membership. Do you use a different approach in working with them?
At the LHMU we have a strategy of like on like. We look at people who, are not necessarily in the same age group, but can communicate, with young people. If you identify and relate to your members they'll be more accepting and open to you. The issues are usually the same in the workplace, but it's the different approach which is important.
What are the differences?
It's a much more informal process. Younger people are a bit more social, they want to get out and about. So rather than discussing issues at the workplace, we'll organise to go for a drink or a coffee after work; for instance we hold hospitality nights at the Marble Bar in the Hilton Hotel. They're held on Monday nights, when most hospitality workers have a day off. They come and have a drink and people from the union are there if they want to talk to them. It's a more friendly, mateship sort of approach to organising.
There are also specific issues that effect young workers, like Junior Rates of Pay. The federal government's push to promote youth rates has given us a great opportunity to go out and talk to younger wokers about how they're being done over and organise them around the issue..
It's an almost accepted wisdom pushed through the media that young people are less collectively minded and more individualistic. That doesn't seem to gel with what you're doing ...
I think there are individually minded people in all groups. The only difference between young people and older people is that they are not as aware of the history of what has been achieved in the past - the eight hour day campaign, long service leave, they don't see how their conditions today have been won through the struggles of the past. That's natural, because it happened before they were born. So that's part of what we do: we say this has what has been achieved, this is what happening now and this is what you can do about it today.
But are the issues changing? Is job security for instance, as important for young people as it is for people who've been brought up with the idea of a job for life?
Especially in hospitality and tourism, job security is no longer the top priority. Workers are more interested in work conditions, pay, health and safety and recognition - a lot of these people are treated by employers with no respect and no recognition of a job well done. It's an attitude thing, rather than an issue you can put in an industrial agreement.
How did you come to be working in the trade union movement?
Before I was doing this I was a delegate for the union. I was a lifeguard at Australia's Wonderland. People out there knew I was doing a Uni course in industrial relations, so they'd naturally come and have a chat about any issues they faced. So that was how I got involved in it. I'm not from a particularly staunch :Labor background, but I had an interest in industrial relations and wanted to get involved at the workplace. Some safety issues arose on one of the rides and we got pretty active. After the dispute (which we won!) the Misos asked me to apply for a full time job with them.
How does the union operate out at Wonderland?
You have a highly casualised, young workforce out there. The organiser has a good approach, the young workers identify with the organiser and can talk in their language and feel they are being listened to. There's a real awareness that they are the union, not some official coming in and telling them how they should think.
And even in a high casualisation area, there is a collectivity identity among the workers?
Yeah. There's a good education process. When an agreement is being negotiated, the union makes sure all the workers are at the centre of the process; whether they are casual, full-time or part-time.
Turning to the bigger picture, how do you see the union movement changing over the next ten years?
I guess the major way is to take the union movement from a servicing approach to an organising approach, fundamentally that's the key to unions changing. It's no longer a matter of sitting down and deciding if we do change, it's about accepting that we have to change. There's no choice in it, we have to. Where I see the union movement in ten years time is taking the organisers' role as it exists today and revolutionising it. the stuff we do today, should not be done in ten years time. We should not be solving problems for members, taking issues and running to the Commission, it should be more of an educative process and organising the workers on the ground, to developthe tools to stand up for themselves and learn about their rights. It's about empowerment of the workforce, not power for the organiser.
So what sort of work do you think an organiser will be doing in ten years time?
It should be more a co-ordinating role. It should not be about individual grievances, it should be about helping all workers understand their rights, educating, not just about the individual agreement at the workplace but also about the industry as a whole.
What about broader political issues? At the moment Labor is struggling to work out what sort of Party it will be in the next century, what ideas and issues resonate with people your age?
Laying my cards on the table, you need to work out what went right in the past, and that is basically the idea that workers had a political party to represent their interests. The Labor Party came from unions and that's what it should be. It's not about Left or Right, who you are voting for next week, it should be about having a political party that listens to the working people. To be honest, I think the factions role is becoming redundant. I don't know how practical that is, but young people just want to see an active Party working reflecting their interests, not worrying about who's Left or Right. I saw what Chris Christodoulou wrote in Workers Online recently and I think most young people couldn't agree with him more. I think he reflects the young people's view perfectly.
In an era when federal politics has been locked in a debate about a goods and services tax, what are the issues that would interest and energise the people you represent?
The GST has been caught up in technical arguments and young people have basically switched off from it. If you wanted to rank the GST in order of importance with the people I deal with, it would be very low. The GST is an issue and young people are interested in the fairness of it, but there are much more important issues. The industrial relations climate is a big one, and I'm not saying that because I come from a union. Younger people also have a level of awareness that other people don't see. They're actually interested in what's going on in the rest of the world. They are interested in human rights. They are interested in things like Jabiluka, National Sorry Day, reconciliation, equal rights for women.
What about the Republic?
It is an issue, but not as high rate. I think young people would look at it like the GST. You still have to pay tax whether its a GST or not. Likewise, whether you have a Republic or a monarchy, they believe the system will still operate in the same sort of way. They believe it's not really going to change anything. The question a lot of young people are asking is: how will make things better? Me, I'm a Republican, but I don't know how much passionate support there is out there.
Do you think your age group identifies as a generation that's distinct from the Baby Boomers and Generation X?
I think there is a generation identity which is driven by the technology at its disposal and the networks that provide. One of the keys is the capacity this provides to educate yourself, and people are doing that in a big way. It's about access to education and information. It's about empowering yourself to find your own answers to your own questions. Asking questions is a good thing.
That's a profound change for political parties, who are used to talking to Baby Boomers through the mass media. How do you think unions should deal with it?
You've got to run with it and embrace it. Set up a web-site so people can find the information they need. The Misos have done this and its working really well. You've got to be a player in the information age. For members, instead of an organiser visiting and handing out the award , you can give them the web-address and they can do it for themselves. Then your organiser can use their time organising rather than servicing. It's about recognising the ability of people to teach themselves - young people aren't idiots, there's no point doing something for other people that they can do for themselves.
So are you optimistic about the future of the union movement?
Absolutely. Sometimes unions have got the wrong direction in the past, I don't think that's entirely the fault of unions given the environment they've been operating in. But I'm extremely optimistic about where we're headed. If the unions are smart enough and humble enough to say "we need to change, we don't have a choice", then I think they will do very well, and not just in Australia, but around the world..
by Michael Crosby
25 housekeepers at the Hyde Park Plaza hotel - the people who clean and present the hotel rooms - took on a major hotel management corporation in Sydney recently and won hands down. On the face of it this was a victory against contracting out of jobs but the real victory lay in newly unionising workers learning the strength of collective action.
This is an emerging story across Sydney's major residential hotels as LHMU makes a very serious attempt, using an organising approach, to unionise hotel workers. They have allocated significant organising resources to the campaign. In addition Troy Burton, a member of the ACTU's Organising Unit has been allocated to the project on a full time basis..
Overall the campaign has met with significant success. The organising team has followed a classic organising approach. The key thrust of the campaign has been to develop activists capable of campaigning around issues. They have been fortunate in that there are a lot of issues. This is an industry that has until recently been poorly organised and this has allowed management a pretty free reign. That enormous progress has been made in the last 2 years is quite clear. Activists have been developed and given the job of mapping their workplaces, issues have been identified and some hundreds of workers have joined the union.
Employers have tried to resist this push to unionisation. One newly opened hotel has insisted on the use of AWAs (individual contracts) to contract its entire workforce. Some others have made life very difficult for the union's new delegates. Most have attempted to resist access for organisers. Interview rooms have been made available next to the office of the human resource manager. In another case, organisers were restricted to the "smoking alley". In most cases the organisers have been able to overcome these obstacles. Indeed these battles over access have made the management look petty and given the organisers credibility in the eyes of workers.
The most potent attack on the union has been a widespread attempt to introduce non-union enterprise agreements. The union successfully organised no votes in the vast majority of hotels.. Again, this exercise demonstrated to workers the meanness of their employers and the benefits of sticking together to get what they wanted - in this case a yes vote for their award and their union and a no vote to management's agenda.
Mirvac on the attack
The management of the Hyde Park Plaza - part of the Mirvac Group - tried to force their housekeeping staff onto a non union agreement some three months ago but this was resisted by workers. During this period workers at the site worked closely with LHMU organisers and out of this experience a good groundwork of trust was developed. Not satisfied, management had another go to break the collective strength and integrity of their housekeepers.Mirvac announced that the housekeeping function was to be outsourced. On 1 - 6 - 1999 the housekeeping staff were informed that this was to be done and that they would be offered jobs by the new contractor AHS. - a Western Australian operator. If they wished to accept these jobs they would need to sign individual contracts with the operator on or before 15 - 6- 1999. If they failed to sign they would be replaced on that date.
A large poster "congratulating" the housekeeping department on their "opportunity" was placed in the staff room. This incensed the housekeeping staff who immediately and publicly, removed and destroyed the poster.
Employees contacted LHMU organiser Rebecca Reilly. A simple leaflet was prepared calling for a meeting of employees the next morning. This leaflet was distributed by a team of organisers, directly to employees whilst they worked. No notification was given of the visit, and no contact made with management at this time. This notice was followed up by telephone calls to all workers by both union officials and two of the hotel contacts.
The following morning (June 2) all employees rostered on, as well as most of those who were not, met in the park opposite the hotel prior to work. It was decided that nobody would sign anything, as there was considerable concern about the implications. A number of key "activists' were identified by this meeting. Although no-one was formally labelled a delegate or representative, a fairly formal "phone tree" was established, which meant that from that point on all information was effectively broadcast to all employees with only one phone call from union officials.
Later in the week, representatives from Mirvac management and the proposed contractor (AHS) held a meeting with the housekeeping staff, welcoming them to the new company, and reassuring them that they had nothing to worry about.
At this meeting, in line with discussions that had taken place at the pre-work union meeting, employees asked a number of questions to which they were given answers that did not reassure them.
This resulted in the calling of another union meeting, for the Friday (June 4) again before work. Once again there was a high staff turn out, and for the first time the issue of what would happen if they all refused to sign the contracts was discussed. Another briefing had been arranged with AHS, at which the East Coast manager of AHS was to attend to reassure the workforce. The workers decided that they would meet again on the morning of that proposed meeting (Tuesday June 8), with officials of the union, and not attend the proposed briefing unless the union organiser were there.
On Tuesday June 8, workers met union officials in the park opposite the hotel, and then decided to move into the lunchroom and not start work until management and AHS agreed to talk to them and their union organiser.
This resulted in a meeting that lasted until 11:45. Whilst management were clearly unhappy about union organisers being present (Troy Burton, Rebecca Reilley and Greta Martin) they agreed to meet with organisers and representatives from the workforce to discuss the concerns. The employers were then asked to leave the room whilst representatives were formally elected. As the organisers left the hotel, management met them and gave an undertaking to postpone the proposed contracting out whilst discussions took place.
The Union organisers and four workers met with Hyde Park Plaza management and Australasian Housekeeping Systems management the following afternoon.
A number of concerns were raised about the proposal, and whilst some guarantees were given in relation to pay rates (award minimums) concerns about job security and workloads were not resolved. The worker representatives made it extremely clear to management that it wasn't simply a question of entitlements. They felt deeply hurt by the process that had been adopted.
Mirvac had adopted a policy over a number of years of issuing incentive bonuses to permanent staff of several hundred dollars worth of shares. When the worker representatives asked if they would continue to be eligible to receive these offers they were clearly told by the general manager that this would no longer be happening anyway, and so it would not be an issue either way. Two days later every Mirvac hotel employee was offered $500 worth of shares - except the Hyde Park Plaza housekeeping department. More than any other single event, this completely destroyed all respect for management, and any faith in their reassurances.
Management gave an undertaking to respond to the issues raised, and not to progress with the contracting out until the issues had been resolved. A further meeting was scheduled for the following Wednesday (June 16).
On Tuesday June 15, AHS management contacted the LHMU office and postponed indefinitely the following day's meeting, due to AHS management being unavailable due to personal reasons. Attempts by LHMU organisers to set up a further meeting were resisted. AHS management agreed to meet, but said that Mirvac management would not be involved, as they had declared that the issues were now between AHS and the LHMU. Hyde Park Plaza management confirmed this position, and declared that the contracting out would be going ahead on Tuesday June 29, and that employees had until then to sign contracts with AHS, or they would be without a job.
A meeting of workers was called to discuss the situation on the morning of Friday June 18, and they decided that they would all refuse to sign any agreements. Possible management tactics were discussed, including the likelihood that employees would be approached on an individual basis and told that other employees had signed, and being threatened with unemployment if they did not sign. They undertook not to sign anything until they had discussed it with each other, and shown the documents to an LHMU organiser.
On Monday June 21 and Tuesday June 22, Management representatives from both Mirvac and AHS made concerted efforts to intimidate staff into signing contracts, including the tactics the workers had discussed. Whilst the workers found this extremely stressful, without exception they refused to sign, and it only further alienated them from management. Eventually management attempted to call a meeting, but staff refused to attend, saying they were sick of being harassed over the issue.
A pre-work meeting of workers and union officials was arranged for Wednesday June 23, at which the housekeepers resolved to fight.
They would strike on the following Friday and undertook not to discuss this with anyone, as they wanted the action to be as much of a surprise for management as possible. It is clear from the reactions of several management people that the workers were able to keep their intended action secret. Further, they agreed on a number of actions to take if management continued to attempt to persuade them to sign the contracts, including walking out of lunchrooms, turning their backs on managers, and short scripted response about being left to complete their work without harassment.
The decision to strike was courageous action indeed. Many of the workers had lengthy periods of service at the hotel - one person had been there 35 years and another 25 years. One of their key concerns was the loss of their accrued entitlements. If they signed the individual contracts these would be preserved by Mirvac in a Trust Fund. The workforce is low paid so presumably they had no resources to carry them through either a prolonged strike or unemployment if their strike was unsuccessful. The union, like most Australian unions, has no strike fund so could not afford to pay strike pay. The workers stood to lose everything.
The organisers began to mobilise the whole membership across Sydney hotels. Organiser, Kylie Mills, met with housekeeping members as far afield as Blacktown Travelodge and sent in a representative to the support the Hyde Park Plaza workers on the picket. A large contingent of Star City casino delegates also participated as did a number of hotel workers who came to the picket on their days off or before work. As well, many of the housekeeping members in hotels near the Hyde Park, pledged their support to attend the picket during their lunch hours.
Union secretaries in Sydney were rung to seek their support at the picket and demonstration at Friday lunchtime. The Secretary of the Labor Council, Michael Costa, was asked for his support which was given enthusiastically. Costa had recently committed his Council to the adoption of a far more organising approach to its work.
Plans were begun to be put in place for Naomi Steer, the Labor Council officer in charge of community liaison to contact community groups, churches and the like and ask them to support the housekeepers and ask the various groups to write to Mirvac and ask for fair treatment for the workers. If they were not satisfied, we were to ask them to threaten to write to all their affiliates informing them of the strike by housekeepers at the Hotel.
The Secretary of the Media Alliance, Anne Britton was also contacted for her support. The Sebel of Sydney, a Mirvac hotel, marketed itself to artists visiting from overseas. She was asked to get the leaders of the American Screen Actors Guild and British Actors Equity to write to the hotel expressing concern over the dispute. In the event of the dispute not being settled they were to be asked to write to their members indicating that there could be problems at hotels managed by the Mirvac chain. This she agreed to do.
The LHMU's organisers arranged for a delegation of the housekeepers to attend the meeting of Labor Council scheduled for Thursday night and speak to the delegates asking for their support. This they did to great effect. Sora Fulak and Belinda Nicholls spoke movingly of their plight and what they were prepared to risk in order to keep their jobs and remain members of their union. Clearly these were ordinary workers being oppressed by an employer. These workers were heard in absolute silence and at its conclusion they were met with prolonged applause. At the meeting's end unions from around the hall promised their support and attendance the next day at the picket.
Immediately after the meeting, Peter Lewis, the Labor Council's journalist, contacted an ABC radio journalist and asked him to come to the Trades Hall Inn to interview the two housekeepers. This happened, with the result that news of the picket and demonstration formed part of the ABC radio news the next morning. Lewis also drafted a classically short media release which he sent out that night to all media outlets. The wire services picked up the story and circulated news of the dispute on their networks.
The picket began promptly at 7.30 a.m. under red union banners and with a full turn out of the striking staff together with a large number of LHMU organisers. A meeting was being held that day for LHMU delegates from the paint industry so these delegates turned up at the picket to lend their support during their lunch break. Numbers were also swelled by the trainees from Organising Works turning up en masse to lend a hand.
Passing motorists were asked to honk their horns in support and this a sizeable proportion of cars and trucks did to the great delight of the picketers. There really is something about a blast from a semi trailer that gladdens the heart of a worker on their very first picket line!
The pamphlet passed out to passers-by was very simple and drew their attention to the attack on the workers' right to join a union. It asked them to ring one or all of the Mirvac hotels listed and express their concern at the treatment being given to the housekeepers.
The police were a heavy presence but took no action to move us on. Some cars faced by the picket chose not to enter.
Michael Costa from the Labor Council turned up at 9 a.m. unannounced and addressed the workers. His message was that organising represented our future and that companies like Mirvac had to be defeated. The media were present in reasonable numbers throughout the morning and ABC radio did a live cross to the picket line to talk to the organisers and workers.
The Employment Advocate rang to say they were very concerned at the situation and would be investigating. The whole union movement waits with bated breath for their rigorous and unbiased assessment of Mirvac's actions.
Given all this activity and a demonstration due to take place at noon, at 10.15, Mirvac sued for peace. Three delegates and two officials from the union negotiated a settlement which provided for all the workers' demands being met. No outsourcing was to take place at any Mirvac hotel without the agreement of the workers. The agreement specifically provided that the settlement was reached as a result of the action of the workers.
In the event, the demonstration to take place at noon was called off. Even so, representatives of the following unions attended - ASU, RTBU, AMWU, MEAA, MEU, IEU, and NSW Nurses.
The 1999 Organising Works group was also there together with their newly made banners, christened for the first time at this action.
The Wash Up
The workers certainly got what they wanted. More importantly, they are now cemented to their union. They have struggled at great personal cost and they will tell their story to any new workers in their workplace for the foreseeable future. More importantly, as one of them said, "The boss will look at us very differently from now on. There'll be no more taking us for granted." And that's really what unions and collectivity are all about - giving workers voice, pride and power.
The union succeeded in preventing a widescale outsourcing of newly unionised workers on individual contracts. In addition, those workers involved have organised to go and visit sites that helped in their dispute and to talk to other hotel workers facing similar threats. Another important benefit has been the spreading of the word back in Sydney's hotels and casinos that a small group of women housekeepers, by getting together, working with their union and getting the support of the movement were able to beat a major multi national.
But above all, the organisers have been educating these workers to see themselves as the union. It was important for them and the whole campaign that they experienced the pressure of struggle and the feeling of victory.
Some other lessons were learnt. The Labor Council played a central role - akin to its role in the late 19th Century when it was established to act as a centre of organising workers. The decision taken by the Council's affiliates to turn its regular meetings into reports on the progress of organising campaigns has been vindicated. The report from the two housekeeping delegates was both fascinating for the Council's delegates but also of value in itself to the campaign. It built support amongst unions and helped in getting the journalists involved.
The usefulness of a professional, well connected journalist at the Labor Council was demonstrated conclusively. The Council's journalist has worked on the Daily Telegraph as well as for the Minister for Industrial Relations. He knows the journalists who will be reporting on disputes like these. He was able to ring the individuals concerned and sell the story to them.
All in all, this was a good win for the workers, their organisers and the union movement as a whole.
This article was prepared with assistance from organisers Troy Burton and Rebecca Reilly
by Erik Eklund
Introduction
The development of the labour movement in the mining and industrial towns of Australia is an area of increasing interest and research for Australian labour historians. We are only just beginning to discover the way in which the experiences of workers at local or regional level relates to labour history at a national level. This paper focuses on two mining towns, Mount Morgan in Central Queensland and Queenstown near the west coast of Tasmania, and it considers the development of the labour movement in the unique conditions that characterised the two isolated mining fields. It represents a small part of an ongoing research project that looks at a range of themes in the history of these communities and others throughout Australia, including Port Kembla, and Port Pirie.
Mount Morgan
Mount Morgan was a single industry town. Its existence was dependent on the existence of the mine. The great Mount Morgan ore body was first worked on a commercial basis in 1883. In its early years the mine was primarily worked for its gold content. By 1886 a town had been surveyed, and the Mount Morgan Gold Mining Company formally registered. By 1891 the population had increased to 3,514, and the mine continued to return fabulous profits to its original syndicate members.
The town's prosperity peaked in the late 1900s when the mine and its smelters, which were increasingly focusing on copper rather than gold, supported a population of 12,500. But the 1911 census recorded a population of only 9,772 after a decline in world base-metal prices. The post-war recession in the early 1920s was a further blow to the company's prospects. After the liquidation of the 'old company' in 1927 and the struggles of the new Mount Morgan Ltd to resume operations, the population dropped to a mere 3,262 by the late 1920s.
Mount Lyell - Queenstown
The Mount Lyell mine began as an open cut in the early 1880s but reverted to underground mining in 1909. In 1935 open cut mining recommenced after mining low grade ore became commercially viable, and this was the dominant mining practice by World War Two.
Mount Lyell was also worked for its gold and its copper, but in contrast to Mount Morgan, the field was initially worked by a number of different companies, the most important of which were the Mount Lyell and the North Lyell companies. As a result a vast amount of economic and social infrastructure was replicated - Queenstown had at one stage three separate railways leading to two separate ports. The valleys around Mt Lyell were dotted with smaller settlements, Crotty, Linda and Gormanston. After a period of bitter rivalry, the two major companies merged in 1903. Eventually the smaller communities disappeared. One was flooded by a new hydroelectric dam, and the others dying much slower deaths.
As at Mount Morgan some industrial development associated with the mine appeared in the form of smelters and refineries. Smelting began at Mt Lyell in 1896, and by 1915, the Reduction works employed some 750 workers.
Decline and Deindustrialisation
The future of Queenstown and Mount Morgan was tied to the geological and commercial prospects of the nearby-ore bodies. Early estimations of the future were full of optimism and confidence. Mount Morgan was the favourite topic of travellers and journalists. Likewise at Queenstown the Zeehan and Dundas Herald commented in 1896 that "The Mount Lyell has certainly become one of the foremost ventures in the mining industry of the world" (18 August 1896).
But after the initial flush of growth, and the fabulous profits delivered to some investors, the optimistic tone moderated. As the Queensland Minister for Mines put it in 1930: "Every mine, like a human being, has its life". (cited in J.Kerr, Mount Morgan: gold, copper and oil, p.183) And the economics of siting large smelting and refining plant near a mine with a definite life were not promising.
These "wasting assets" produced not only millions of tons of gold and copper bearing ore, but a range of distinctive political and social formations that tried to protect and enhance that asset, despite the widely-held view that the mine would inevitably die. In both mining towns the idea of a limited life put limits on the rhetoric of progress and growth. The uncertain future also created some distinctive political coalitions. The end of a mining field is not a matter of geology and simple economics, and local political coalitions proved as much. The life of a mine could be extended. Subsidies, tax breaks, the provision of infrastructure, incentives for further exploration, could all prolong the life of a mine. Locals of all classes came together to lobby State government over the provision of better infrastructure, or subsidies for the mine to continue production. In light of this, moderate unions with some industrial and political clout, such as the Australian Workers Union (AWU), became not only important representatives of local miners and smelter workers, but also key participants in various campaigns to keep the mines operative.
The Labour Movement
Both workplaces were dominated by the Australian Workers Union by 1917. In Queenstown the AWU evolved out of the Amalgamated Miners Associations (AMA). This highlights the role of former Victorian gold miners in the area, many of whom had crossed Bass Strait in the 1880s. From 1894 to 1917 the AWU had successfully transformed itself from a union of shearers and other pastoral workers to a general rural workers union. Amalgamations with the smaller mining industry unions was a feature of this expansion, and this occurred at both Queenstown and Mount Morgan in the period 1914 to 1917. By 1925 it was estimated that there 450 AWU members at Mt Lyell out of a total work force of 900 workers. At Mount Morgan the AWU took over from a local union the Australian Workers Association in 1913. By the 1920s at both workplaces peak bodies of workplace unions called Combined Union Councils usually consisting of the AWU, the electricians union, the engine drivers and firemen, and the carpenters had formed.
Some of this AWU dominance translated into local success for Labor candidates who were former union organisers. The Labor party in all states drew significant support from rural and regional areas, and AWU-backed candidates in these electorates were very successful. Jack Stopford, MLA for Rockhampton from 1912-35, grew up in Mt Morgan. He was a former General Workers� union organiser (a predeccessor of the AWU) and engine driver. He was dismissed by the Mount Morgan company for his union activities before becoming a member of state parliament.
One historian has argued that the labor party in Tasmania was founded in the west coast mines. Key parlimentarians such as James Odgen (MHA for Zeehan 1906-09 and later Labor senator) and James Long (senate) had backgrounds in the local mines around Queenstown. Ogden himself had been an organiser for the AMA at Zeehan. He was finally expelled from the ALP in 1925 for allegedly criticising extremists in the party. (Australian Dictionary of Biography & W.A. Townsley, Tasmania: from colony to statehood 1803-1945, 1991). These Labor parliamentarians were important in the complex and ongoing series of meetings and discussions between management, unions and governments to maintain the "wasting asset". Their overarching concern was to protect the workers� jobs and ensure some job security, but often this involved protecting the interests (and profits) of mining companies.
At the same time we shouldn't underestimate the AWU rank and file and we shouldn't mistake the bureaucratic and machine-based juggernaut of the AWU, for the activism and militancy of some AWU members. This is the perspective that detailed local studies can offer. Branch members had to be occasionally reminded of the moderate, arbitrationist policies of the union. Often in the face of harsh economic conditions and political radicalism some branches rebelled and led "unofficial" strike action.
In Queenstown in 1911 strike action over the eight hour day was threatening enough for the company to request that staff be enrolled as special constables to protect company property, and that police protect the homes of staff in the township.
There were also significant industrial disturbances in both towns in the 1920s. This was a difficult decade for the mining and related processing industries. Base metal prices, never that buoyant after the Great War, had declined further from 1925. In 1922 a major downturn was experienced across the country. Workers in Queenstown and in Mount Morgan were faced with the prospect of a 20% wages cut, an idea proposed by both companies in light of overseas experience, and declining returns for processed material.
In December 1920 the Mt Morgan Company applied to have all industrial awards covering 1200 employees suspended, and also sought a 20% reduction in pay. (Daily Mail, 13/4/1921) A long industrial dispute ensued. Finally it was through Government intervention of an offer to reduce freight rates that the Mine reopened in March 1922, after almost a whole year of shut down. Local labor politicians and union officials brokered agreements not only in the interests of members' jobs, but also out of concern to stave off violence and direct action. Again in 1924 a dispute over wages and safety culminated in a strike and a picket at the mine. At subsequent meetings AWU officials were criticised and a vote of no confidence was passed in the state secretary, W. Dunstan (Kerr, p.177). Again Stopford stepped in to smooth relations between unions and management, but not before workers had marched on the mine, rejected the company staff and taken over. According to Stopford's entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography he worked to "quell extremists within the local labour movement".
So in the 1920s we see both faces of the AWU at work in the two towns. AWU officials and AWU-backed labor parliamentarians worked to arbitrate and negotiate industrial conflicts between management and workers. At the same time AWU members were more interested in direct action, and sometimes were dissatisfied with their union representatives. The dilemma that union officials and Labor parliamentarians found themselves in was a difficult one. There was a widespread understanding that mining fields close; that they have a finite life. This meant that a range of bargains and compromises had to be struck with mining companies to keep them running if jobs were to be saved. At the workplace, however, workers, not only wanted continuing employment, they wanted wage justice as well. The tension between rank and file demands and union officials was played out in these two towns in the crucial context of this wasting asset.
This is a sumary of a Paper presented to the Sydney Branch of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History - 10th May 1999.
The ICFTU, the world's largest trade union organisation, has warmly welcomed the release on July 5 of labour activist Dita Sari, chairwoman of the Centre for Indonesian Workers Struggle.
She was arrested in April 1996, and sentenced to five years imprisonment in 1997 for 'subversion'.
Dita Sari was arrested after she organised two rallies, involving over 10,000 workers from factories in the Tandes industrial estate in East Java. The rallies which had demanded a rise in the minimum wage and two-day menstruation leave for female workers, ended violently after the military dispersed the protestors, most of whom were women.
In welcoming her release the ICFTU described her original detention and sentence as "a travesty of justice, designed to break trade union opposition to the government", and added that "we hope that she would now be free to resume legitimate trade union, political or personal activities."
The government had originally tried to barter her release against an agreement not to become involved in public activities or to travel abroad for two years.
The ICFTU said her detention had been arbitrary and illegitimate, and her trial rigged, as the charges against her had been significantly stepped up following anti-government riots in July 1996 (which took place while she was in prison).
While in prison she wasmaltreated and refused permission to attend the funeral of her mother who died in 1996.
The ICFTU, and its regional organisation for Asia, APRO, together with many Asian, European, and North American affiliates campaigned vigourously for Dita Sari's release. A resolution was taken at the ICFTU's Women's Conference in Brazil this May to strengthen the campaign to get her freed.
According to the ICFTU's report on trade union rights' violations released this June at the International Labour Conference in Geneva, despite the fall of President Suharto, the Indonesian government continues to clamp down on protests against the economic situation, often using rubber bullets and batons against protestors. A number of labour activists imprisoned under the Suharto regime still remain in prison.
Although Indonesia has recently ratified a number of key ILO Conventions on workers' rights, attempts to create unions at shop-floor level are still met with hostility by employers. Army officers still intervene in collective bargaining in industrial dispute.
The '80s might be remembered for crap thin leather ties, eyeliner on blokes, and enormous self-congratulatory international hand-wringing rock festivals with three storey high pictures of starving third world kids as a backdrop (really Bob, the rider for Live Aid could still, be feeding most of Eritrea). But was the decade of Hip to Be Square, Money For Nothing and Girls Just Wanna Have Fun totally devoid of decent "shove-it-up-the-establishment-sideways" rock music... well almost.
Snag Cleaver - '80s hair disaster survivor and cultural advisor to the Mullet Creek Memorial Bowling Club Fundraising Auxiliary Sub-committee - trawled his limited memories of the decade that social relevance forgot and came up with...
Ten reasonably interesting moments in rock of the '80s
1 The Jam
Like most of the decent things about the '80s they started in the '70s, had a reverence for the '60s quickly broke up when Culture Club got into the charts. Certainly Paul Weller went on to produce drivel like Speak Like a Child and Long Hot Summer with the insipid Style Council ( Walls Come Tumblin' Down was just a Jam song with keyboards and female backing vocals) but the middle-late period of the Jam's career produced such poignant paeans to the working man as Mr Clean and Smithers-Jones (two different angles on the plight of the urban office worker).
Other worthy entries in the pop-protest lexicon include Pretty Green, Eton Rifles, Going Underground, Just Who is the 5 O'Clock Hero, Planners Dream Goes Wrong and the (still) brilliant Town Called Malice, still bristle with disgust for Thatcher's gameplan.
Weller's admirable work with Red Wedge in the late '80s slightly redeems his cred, but to think that the same bloke who wrote In the City penned You're The Best Thing (that ever happened to me) is a solid argument for striking the 80s from all cultural history.
2 The Clash
Again it began in the '70s didn't make it past the first half of the '80s. There was a commendably inarticulate frustration in both the style and substance of the Clash's first few years, but it wasn't until London Calling and Sandinista that the Clash became the greatest rock band ever.
Dispute rages over the authenticity and sincerity of their social conscience (Strummer's dad had been a mid-ranking foreign office bureaucrat and there is a deal of evidence that their working class pedigree may have been helped by some free and easy PR sperm substitution) and the revolutionary iconography did jar a bit when they were making squillions from their multi-album deal with CBS but on face value, songs like Four Horsemen, Spanish Bombs, Guns of Brixton, Clampdown, Washington Bullets, Magnificent 7, The Call-Up push all the right buttons.
Just imagine if the Class of '77 had graduated in '87, or ever '97 (are you listening Rancid, Green Day et al?) when things were really in the toilet... There's lots more punkesque stuff but most of really depends on the blueprint of the Clash.
3 The Oils
Literate and anthemic, sweaty and loud. Every otherwise politically apathetic waxhead stills knows the words to Power and the Passion and US Forces. Despite all the preaching, the unquestioned sincerity of Garrett's commitment to social issues combined with the sheer guts of the band's delivery commands respect.
4 Billy Bragg
The big-nosed bastard from Barking has a slew of workers' anthems, Power in a Union, Between The Wars, It Says Here etc. but many of his admirer cite his beautifully drawn and deeply personal catalogue of modern urban love songs as their reason for connecting personally the Bragger. Soft!
5 REM
The American south is not famous for very many socially responsible or progressive artistic initiatives. REM make the list based on the hope that Michael stipe was singing about something worthy on the early records before Orange Crush, Exhuming MaCarthy, World Leader Pretend and Finest Worksong confirmed that something vaguely sound was going on in the lyrical content behind Peter Bucks impulsive psychedelic country arpeggios. That's my justification for putting them on the list.
6 The Smiths
On the list mostly for not being Haircut 100. Not a huge political content at first glance but the work of Morrissey and Marr as a whole reveals a deep empathy with the plight of the unsung. Ask, The Queen is Dead, Shoplifters of the World Unite (check Marr's middle 8... exquisite!) and The Headmaster Ritual, betray that along with the Wildean indulgences Morrissey was still on about the shit we all put up with.
7 Camper van Beethoven
An amorphous group of Californians which featured Dave Lowery who went on to form Cracker (remember Teen Angst...what the world needs now?). This band were cruelly thrown into the novelty song basket after Take the Skinheads Bowling was a minor airplay curiosity in 1986. Their last 2 albums Our Beloved Revolutionary Sweetheart and Key Lime Pie are both outstanding. I'm proud to share a gene-pool with the people who made these records. The early stuff pokes fun at America's cultural imperialism in a most erudite fashion. Think They might be Giants and B-52s playing bluegrass reggae and your getting close.
8 The Saints
Australia's answer to punk before the poms knew what the question was. Impossible not to be brimming with political bile living under Joh, so they moved and started writing about other stuff. Their best albums were the '70s ones before Ed Kuepper split to play weird jazz with Laughing Clowns and Chris Bailey started thinking he was Lord Byron.
9 American "alternative" music...
While Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen, Johhny Cougar and Bon Jovi filled 80.000 seat football stadiums at $75 a ticket with anthems about closing steel mills under Reagan and Bush while Panama and Grenada burned, Husker Du, Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets and Nirvana were playing music which David Geffen and his pals would later buy and sell to the moneyed wallies of America as grunge... but that's another story
10 The Uncanny X-Men
Not because they sang Everybody Wants to Work (no, no not me!)? No they make the list because they were the '80s and next to them it's almost possible to validate just about anything else that happened in the decade style wouldn't cross the road to shit on...
Mr Cleaver will be available for frank and open debate on the issues raised above in the lower deck of the Noble stand at the next Swans Home game, consultancy rates payable in beer
LABOUR REVIEW NO. 20, 30 JUNE 1999
- State Regulation of Industrial Relations and Privatisation.
- Labour Market Deregulation in Australia: the Slow Combustion Approach to Workplace Change
- FSU and NRMA Look After Older Workers
- Same Work/ Less Pay
- Is Bigger Better? Union Size and Expenditure on Members
Union Amalgamations and the Decline in Union Density
- Employee Relations in Australia - an Inter-industry Comparison
State Regulation of Industrial Relations and Privatisation. Bernadine Van Gramberg and Julian Teicher
The privatisation, contracting out and corporatisation of many public agencies and functions during the 1980s and 1990s have been accompanied by the implementation of human resources management policies and practices. These policies have lead to the increasing individualisation of the employment relationship. The authors think that the emerging pattern of an elitism within the public service may be a distinctive industrial relations of privatisation.
(Monash University. National Key Centre in Industrial Relations; Working Paper no. 66, March 1999)
Labour Market Deregulation in Australia: the Slow Combustion Approach to Workplace Change Iain Campbell and Peter Brosnan
The pressure for the award system in Australia to adapt to demands for increasing flexibility began in the 1980s. The authors argue that the growing trend to deregulation, with the dismantling of the award system built up over the twentieth century, is amplifying trends to growth in precarious employment, wage dispersion and the development of low pay sectors amongst full time workers.
(Monash University. National Key Centre in Industrial Relations. Working Paper no. 67, March 1999)
FSU and NRMA Look After Older Workers
The Finance Sector Union and the NRMA have reached a new redundancy agreement where employees of 45 years of age get an extra week's pay, and one week's pay for each additional birthday to a maximum of ten weeks. The job security agreement sets a new standard for the finance industry. Severance pay has been capped at 104 weeks.
(Discrimination Alert; issue 88, Jun 8, 1999)
Same Work/ Less Pay
A contract may be unfair because it pays an independent contractor less than an employee doing similar work. A courier driver sought review of a contract under s127A of the Workplace Relations Act on the grounds that it was harsh and unfair. On several grounds the court ruled against the driver, mainly because of serious misconduct, but upheld one of the grounds of complaint, which was that the driver's total pay was less than an employee under the award doing similar work. Dowsett J inserted a paragraph into the award which paid the driver the difference between what he would have earned under the award and what he actually received. (Buchmueller v Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd, Fed Ct (Dowsett J), 26 March, 1999. (1999) 45 AILR 4-039)
(Australian Industrial Law News; no. 5, 28 May, 1999)
Is Bigger Better? Union Size and Expenditure on Members
Mark Davis looks at the union amalgamations of the 1980s and 1990s that often were justified on the grounds of benefits to members of the economies of scale. Larger unions do experience lower costs in serving members but other factors and issues do not provide clear evidence of the benefits of amalgamations.
(Journal of Industrial Relations; vol. 41, no.1, March 1999)
Union Amalgamations and the Decline in Union Density
Mark Wooden also looks at amalgamations, this time challenging the thesis that amalgamations were the cause of the decline in density.
(Journal of Industrial Relations; vol. 41, no.1, March 1999)
Employee Relations in Australia - an Inter-industry Comparison
Three years on from the election of the Coalition, has their industrial relations policy, as implemented by the Workplace Relations Act, been a cause of more or less harmony in the workplace? Mark Cully and Adriana VandenHuevel summarise the results of their research on three key indicators: voluntary labour turnover, absenteeism and industrial disputes. As might be expected, the results were mixed.
(Australian Bulletin of Labour; vol. 25, no. 2, June 1999)
Wimper
NATO's humanitarian justifications for the war against Serbia are lies.
The aerial bombing created what it was supposedly intended to stop - the dispossession of the Albanian Kosovars. Milosevic drove hundreds of thousands from their homes only after NATO began its attacks.
His troops killed, tortured and raped thousands only after the humanitarians in the West unleashed wave after wave of bombs on civilian Serbs, also killing thousands of innocents.
11 weeks of sustained bombing have destroyed Kosovo and Serbia physically and economically.
NATO targeted civilian infrastructure targets in Serbia like water, communications and electricity. Lloyd's List, an insurance newspaper, reported recently that reserves in Belgrade were down to 12.5 percent and that the city's power grid was "almost beyond repair".
The Government in Yugoslavia says that 54 road and rail bridges have been damaged as well as five civilian airports, 20 hospitals, 30 health centres, 190 educational institutions and 12 railway lines.
500,000 workers have lost their jobs because of the bombing.
The bombing has produced an environmental disaster across Europe. By bombing so-called military targets like chemical and oil facilities, NATO has released vast amounts of pollutants, including deadly dioxins, into the air. The effects of depleted uranium from US shells are unknown.
The economy is in ruins. Yugoslav economists have estimated it will cost around $100bn to restore Yugoslavia to its pre-war position.
Economic sanctions, already in place for 7 years against Yugoslavia, will continue. Such sanctions are designed to kill people. For example the West's blockade of Iraq is killing 4000 people a month. Will the same happen in Serbia?
Blair and Clinton have said they will not provide aid to the Serbs until they overthrow Milosevic.
Given the destruction wreaked on Serbia, it is possible the lack of Western aid coupled with sanctions could do the same to the Serbian people. However in all probability the Russians will act as sanctions busters for the Serbs.
Without aid, the Serbian civilian infrastructure cannot be re-built. People will be denied basic services at levels necessary for normal living.
To imagine now that the Serbian people - bitter yes, but economically very weak and not organised at all - are in the position to overthrow Milosevic is madness. The Opposition is divided.
Indeed in 1996 when a mass movement did develop that was capable of getting rid of Milosevic the West did all it could to emasculate it.
It may be that what Clinton wants is not a mass movement but some sort of military coup against Milosevic. The danger here is that a military coup may produce a leader more reactionary and nationalistic than the present one.
So why did NATO attack Serbia, if not for humanitarian reasons? Henry Kissinger let the truth out when he said he only supported bombing Serbia because NATO's "credibility" was at stake.
Last year US secretary of state Madeleine Albright said the US wanted NATO to be able to conduct operations "from the Middle East to central Africa".
NATO has become the policeman for the US in the area.
As the UK paper The Financial Times said: "The alliance set an important precedent by launching a military operation against a sovereign government in defence of that nation's own citizens. It did so without the authorisation of the UN Security Council and thus it greatly extended the legal justification for military action."
NATO, not the UN, is now the bother boy for the United States. From the US point of view NATO is much more pliant and reliable than the UN.
The war was also designed to sideline Russia. However the march of Russian troops into Pristina shows that the strategy may not be working. All NATO's actions seem to have done is strengthen the hawks in Russia and made the situation in the Balkans much more dangerous as a result.
It is not only the Russians who fear NATO dominance. Other countries, especially China, are drawing the conclusion that they will have to increase their arms spending to respond to and protect themselves from NATO's belligerence. If Serbia one day, why not them the next?
The peace settlement itself shows that the bombing was unnecessary. This deal could have been offered to Milosevic in March and he would probably have accepted. This is because the present deal, from Milosevic's point of view, is better than the Rambouillet Agreement offered in February.
That Agreement would have imposed Western troops throughout all of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. This demand would have destroyed Serbian sovereignty over Serbia itself. The new agreement is only about troops in Kosovo.
In addition under Rambouillet the occupation of Kosovo would have been under NATO control. The new agreement is more ambiguous. Although NATO has operational control under it, the UN (which NATO has sought to exclude) is to be the governing authority. Whether this occurs in practice is another matter.
Despite claims by Blair and Clinton to the contrary , the position in the Balkans is even more dangerous now than before NATO intervention.
The war in Yugoslavia has only begun.
Certainly the ethnic cleansing will not stop. With Serb Kosovars fleeing, one group of ethnic cleansers - the Serb military - is being replaced by another - the KLA, with NATO support.
Robert Fisk in the British newspaper the Independent reported that the head of NATO ground troops, Lieutenant-General Michael Jackson, wanted "the withdrawal of all Serb reservists in Kosovo between the ages of 18 and 55". Fisk says that this is "a step which would reduce the indigenous Serb population to tens of thousands of vulnerable old men, women and children".
The K L A has a new commander, Agim Cecu. He was a general in the Croatian army and ethnically cleansed 200,000 Serbs from Krajina. Why will he not try to force out any remaining Serbs from Kosovo?
NATO bombing has destabilised the Balkans. Rulers in countries nearby could move to dismember Serbia.
For example, it is possible the Albanian government could try to incorporate Kosovo into a Greater Albanian state. Montenegro and Macedonia would respond with war.
With Serbia weakened, Croatian leader and ethnic cleanser Franjo Tudjman could be tempted to seize some of its land.
The Bosnian Muslims lost territory during the war in Bosnia. Their leader, Alia Izetbegovic, could start a war in Bosnia to win back some of that territory.
Any spreading of the Balkans war would drag NATO members Greece and Turkey in on opposite sides.
The hawks in Russia could well then mobilise their army and intervene.
Kosovo, like Bosnia, will be divided.
NATO is an occupying force. However the Russians have forced themselves on NATO. Having a pro-Serb army involved in Kosovo will create chaos and threatens NATO's goal of a pro-western Albanian protectorate.
Because NATO is an occupying force, it will soon meet major problems.
For example NATO will have trouble with the Kosovars themselves. As the war progressed NATO, which at first described the Kosovo Liberation Army as terrorists (the same description Milosevic used to justify his campaign) began to work more closely with them.
In doing so, NATO raised the expectations of the KLA for independence. NATO will not deliver. Under the peace deal, Kosovo is to stay an autonomous province of Serbia.
NATO also wants to disarm the KLA. In the dangerous environment in Yugoslavia, some Albanian Kosovars have refused.
It is possible that the KLA will split between those who are pro-NATO and those who think they have been betrayed by Blair and Clinton over independence. This split could result in civil war. NATO's enemy then will not only be the Serbs but also one section of the KLA.
Destruction, death, war. Some victory for Blair and Clinton.
This is the way the New World Order ends This is the way the New World Order ends Not with a whimper but a bang.
John Passant John Passant is a Canberra-based writer. He apologises to TS Eliot for the use and abuse of some of his great lines.
by Peter Lewis
The cricket World Cup flows into State of Origin flows into Wimbledon flows into the Rugby Union tri-nation series as a run-up to the World Cup. There are test matches in every sport from volleyball to hockey and the new made for TV forms of golf (skins) and swimming (short-course).
For the nationalist, there has never been more to be proud to be an Australian about. Even as business departs the nation-state for the freedom of the global economy, we loyal sports-lovers are being encouraged to keep our identities locked within our traditional borders.
No matter that the players swap sporting nationalities like undergarments, a South African captain playing number eight for the Blues, and Australian opening the English bowling attack, a young Serb making her mark for Fairfield. We cheer those elite athletes representing our nation with an irrational sense of pride and identification.
Of course, the key driver to this is pay TV. International sports contests provide a product which is cheap to produce and has all the drama of a soap opera. Speaking all languages, there are need for subtitles; and the advertising logos displayed down the sidelines, or painted into the turf, are the same the world over. Mass production of media consumables at its best.
A compliant free media, often controlled by the same companies controlling the sporting event, beating up these events into matters of national significance, the sporting package becomes perfect fodder for the cable networks, struggling to fill their 36 channels.
World Cups are particularly effective for the pay-TV programmers. It may be true that the Olympic Games was first to recognise the importance of focussing the whole world's attention on a single event, but any sport worth its professional status is now following the model.
By creating struggles for global supremacy, Australian audiences can sit riveted to a match between, say New Zealand and Zimbabwe, knowing the outcome will be vital to our own team's chances. So you can produce a nationalistic element in a contest, even when your nation isn't involved!
The problem is, there comes a point of sensory overload, where the pronouncements of national importance lose their meaning. Who really cares what happens to the Waratahs, when we're still cleaning up from the last ticker-tape parade.
By trying to fill every game with excess meaning, the controllers of sport are taking a huge risk. They risk taking the meaning away from the whole package of international sport. The value of a 1940's Ashes battle was that it was a once in three year event. The moments of exhilaration during the contest were partly a result of the anticipation of the lead-up period. The value of each event in an endless stream is inevitably going to be diminished, we only have so much sporting passion to spread. Spread it too thin, and the magic disappears altogether.
Interestingly, amongst all these events, its the club AFL that seems to have maintained the most passion. Perhaps this is because of all the sports played in Australia, this one is constrained by national borders. The club competition is the pinnacle, players routinely pull out of State of Origin and the end of year contests against the Irish are more vaudeville than real sporting events.
Of all the games, it is the AFL which has maintained the club grand final as its high-point of the season. Sure, it's expanded nationally in the last decade - but this success can be attributed to the attraction of an Australian sport. It's interesting that the popularity of AFL really started rising when Super League started tearing Rugby League apart. In its efforts to become an international game, League lost its suburban soul, many of whom switched to the Swans.
As fanaticism fatigue sets in; I'm happy watching the Sydney Swans and leaving the rest of the weekend to more personal pursuits. All strength to club sport, but no more internationals! If I hear another national anthem, I'll throw up.
Union's membership levels in the 15 - 19 age group are now down to 17% and still falling. Much may be explained by looking at structural issues - this is well documented and understood, but there is no question that young people, having grown up in a different environment, with different cultural environment, different world events, different media, and different parental attitudes - think differently!
Unions reached the peak of their power and influence when the post war baby boomer generation dominated the labor force. Following WWII the unprecedented period of world peace, brought about by the threat of nuclear annihilation, engendered a new age of idealism. This combined with the Old World notions of stoicism and community values inherited from their parents created a cultural environment for the baby boomer generation that fit well with the collective philosophy of unionism.
Generations X & Y saw the ultimate failure of this idealism, they see through the fakery in the politics of the nineties. Poll driven parties and politicians are struggling to identify issues that differentiate them from their opponents. The demands of the market place and the effects of globalisation have marginalised ideologies and forced parties to retreat further and further from their traditional platforms. The result is that there is little party political attachment anymore and voting patterns are determined as much by personality as policy - the Jeff Kennet factor.
Young People have bombarded with advertising since day one. All their lives, everywhere they look someone is trying to push a product or an idea - they understand the media and the power of the market better than anyone, they know they're a demographic. Baby boomer marketing and advertising managers are grappling with the problem of pushing their products onto this world wise generation - Generations X & Y just don't buy it that easily. This is frequently misinterpreted as a kind of anti-social cynicism - but it's not, it's just that clumsy and obvious attempts to gain their loyalty don't wash.
Young people are not necessarily cynical, they're just a lot more tuned to the real world than prior generations - after all they grew up in it. They are less likely to buy an idea (or an ideology) on faith alone - they need to be given a persuasive argument.
Youth culture doesn't advocate revolution anymore, it promotes a counter-culture of a much more subtle and sophisticated kind. There is a whole branch of youth culture that glorifies the under achiever, parodies the traditional family structure, mocks the notion of fulfillment through consumerism and pokes fun at the obvious flaws in baby boomer values and ideologies. Undoubtedly Generations X & Y who have adopted Bart Simpson and Southpark are going to end up with a fundamentally different outlook to the world from the Baby Boomers who grew up on Enid Blyton, the Brady Bunch or even MASH.
What of Generation X & Y's individualism? Is their perceived lack of loyalty characterised by a 'what's in it for me', attitude? The evidence available seems to suggest that it is increasingly difficult to get young people to develop associations, identifications or loyalty to products or groups. Unions are dealing with a cohort that has grown up in a post-structural society. Their loyalties are called upon from a hundred different directions thousands of times a day, the young people only have the same amount of loyalty to give as previous generations but there are more products, companies, labels, brands, images, movies, night clubs, sporting teams, soft drinks, candy bars, fast-food outlets, lifestyles, subcultures, educators, employers, causes, religions, friends, colleagues, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television channels and internets sites all competing for that loyalty, all the time - little wonder that there is less to give.
Young peoples loyalties may be more divided, but that doesn't mean that their hearts are in the wrong place. Indeed they have grown up in a richer cultural environment than previous generations have experienced, they have more choices than ever before, and are constantly called upon to prioritise the allocation of time and resources. By spreading their time and energy across a broader range of interests and by being highly selective in that process young people are able to gain a much greater degree of individual expression.
There is no reason why unions shouldn't have a place in this. Work makes up a reasonable proportion of people's lives and unions can serve the vital role of providing self-empowerment through the development of a sense of collective identification in the workplace. Unions however must be realistic about the level of commitments that young people might have in other spheres of their lives.
So what does this mean for unions? It means that we can't sell young people on our ideology alone. It also means that maybe we can't expect that their union activity will be their only interest. We don't need to rely on ideology to convince people of the direct and tangible benefits of unionism; nor is there a conflict in accepting that loyalties are often divided.
Unions help people understand their collective power, they get people to work together to achieve better outcomes for individuals through collective action. Unions facilitate better communication and understanding in the workplace to bring about a stronger sense of collective consciousness. This reality applies regardless of the ideological outlook of the people involved. Furthermore young people can understand this better than anyone - they are the most vulnerable group in the workforce and they know it.
That's why the Labor Council's survey results show that young are more supportive of the concept of unionism than any other age demographic - they understand the principle of collective empowerment, because it works. But to successfully recruit young people unions must first understand where they are coming from, rather than judging them according to the principles and values of prior generations.
What started as a cheap publicity stunt was transformed into a "fatwah", a "disgusting" attack on freedom of speech, the act of a "fascist" publication, the work of a "childish web-site", and so on and so on.
The reaction of Piers and his cohorts says as much about the closed nature of this mutual admiration society of highly paid columnists as it does about their lack of security, irony or humour.
On our count the reward scored a run in Stay in Touch, two columns in the Financial Review, a Saturday column in the Tele, at least four gratuitous mentions in Piers own column and a nasty little payback attack on Michael Costa.
Interestingly, at no stage has the Telegraph mentioned the words "Workers Online", perhaps proving our argument that the issue is not one of freedom of Speech, but of who gets heard. By purging our name from their copy, the Telegraph columnists were using their power to withhold vital facts from their readers. But who am I to criticise them? They, after all, are Daily Telegraph columnists! I'm just a ratbag with a website.
But, alas dear readers, the time has come to end the fun and bring the issue to closure.
We asked the question and you have spoken in your silence. On the evidence before us we can categorically state: Piers Akerman is not a criminal and has never committed a criminal act.
He is however -- also on the evidence before us -- an extremely thin-skinned man who has done more to promote Worker Online than anyone else in the community. For this, of course, he has our eternal gratitude if not our respect.
In officially withdrawing the $1000 reward, we can only hope for more publicity. It's hard to imagine Piers will not contrive a way to trumpet his confirmed innocence.
To his defenders, Workers Online apologises for having had the gall to shake your ivory towers.
And if Piers needs to have his right to Freedom of Speech affirmed, we do so. From our point of view he is now free to do what he does best: spread his mean-spirited view of life across the community
The money will instead be dedicated to humanitarian purposes - including the creation of an attractive range of Piers the Hutt T shirts which will be launched at our 21st Birthday bash tonight!
To get a T-shirt, email your name and details. Otherwise you can purchase it in person at Labor Council, Level 10, 377 Sussex Street.
© 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/21/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 |