If there ever was a symbol of the political difficulties the Howard Government is facing straddling the defend between social conservatism and economic liberalism it is Louise Markus.
Markus is the Hillsong parishioner who squeaked into Federal Parliament last election by a couple of hundred votes after a very un-Christian campaign discrediting the ALP's candidate Ed Husic on the basis of his Muslim linage. As Husic pointed out in a recent address to the Sydney Institute, the campaign backing Markus used all the tactics, push polling, op-eds by conservative columnists, all aiming to highlight the fact that here was a Muslim candidate - and that was a dangerous thing to the people of Greenway.
It worked a treat and Markus squeaked in to an unlikely victory, an Evangelical Christian on the Howard Government front bench. The political commentators worked themselves into a lather, slotting her alongside Family First Senator Steve Fielding as proof of the rise of religion in Australian politics.
Only difference is that while Fielding holds a Senate seat in his own right, Markus is part of the Howard team; a team that has used its unexpected Senate majority to make a mad grab for power by over-turning more than a century of workers rights in an effort to put a stake through the heart of the union movement.
The difference in their approach to IR has been poles apart; while Markus has had to apologise and toe the party line, Fielding has been running an increasingly tough line based on the simple assertion that these laws are bad for Australian families. I(t hasn't exactly been a radical call given the line-up of theologians saying much the same things: Cardinal, Bishop, Rabbi, Imam - Howard has unified our faith community like never before.
But for Louise, it's been a different story; a constant stream of constituent queries; a well-organised local campaign committee and the constant shadow of the legislation. Slowly, reports of her fraying under the pressure have begun to filter through; one (unsubstantiated) report was that she accused her electorate of being KKK clones; another that she angrily turned on a union organiser at a community day.
The following email summary of a telephone conversation with a constituent highlights her difficulties:
Q: Are you going to support the industrial relations changes?
A: Her answer was she was supporting it in principal-but there were changes that she had relayed to other ministers and the Prime Minister that she wished to see. These had subsequently been adopted and included in the new draft.
In effect, Markus is attempting to claim credit for the dodgy 'projections' being offered workers - that is, the fact that award conditions will apply unless the AWA you are forced to sign says they won't
Q: What is the likelihood that employees will lose conditions such as overtime, penalty rates, shift allowances and redundancy pay despite assurances that they can maintain their award conditions?
A: This was one of the changes too that she had put up and had been adopted. If you are under an EBA these will continue if all the staff wish it to continue. The difference will be in that the EBA's will be registered federally instead of at state level. An employer may offer a new employee an AWA though.
Ah, so that's the catch!
Q. The lack of evidence for the removal of unfair dismissal laws both in terms of it being a problem for business and its impact on
employment.
A. Government would come down hard on employers who abused the system. Employees could go to AIRC first. If not satisfied they could ask the office of workplace assistance to represent them. Unfair dismissal now covers more categories.
This is gibber - the Commission is losing its powers; unfair dismissal are gone and the only avenue is through the courts in very narrowly defined categories. And the employer merely needs to point to performance or attitude to get away with it.
Q. How are Australian Workplace Agreements going to suit the needs of the individual when research tends to show that when they are offered in the workplace they are in fact the same for all employees?
You can use an union to represent you in negotiations.
Great, except your union has limited access to your workplace, can be fined for asking for the wrong thing in bargaining and has basically no right to take industrial action. That is, you can be represented by your union, but it will be fighting with one hand tied behind its back.
Q. Why won't the Government allow a full and comprehensive
Senate Inquiry into the proposals?
A full and comprehensive Senate Inquiry into the proposals could not be held was because of the "cost".
Q. The government has already spent in excess of $40 million wouldn't it have been better to have spent a few million on a Senate inquiry so we could at least have had some input into a legislation that was going to affect our lives so much.
A. Send me an email with my address so I can answer your questions by mail. I'll also send you the booklet.
Ah, the live of a Howard Government backbencher.
Footnote: A recent poll of voters in Greenway, the nation's most marginal seat, found that 62 per cent of Greenway voters thought the changes would be bad or very bad for the average work and 31 per cent of voters would be less likely to vote for the Howard Government next time around.
If those numbers are anything to go by, the Human Wedge may not be torn for much longer.
Drawing on ground breaking research from social epidemiologist Sir Michael Marmot, ACIRRT argues that there is a direct link between income inequality, sickness and lower life expectancy.
Marmot argues that there is a 'social gradient' that operates along the entire occupational and social hierarchy, meaning the more egalitarian a society the higher the life expectancy.
Where an individual lies on this hierarchy carries a direct link to life expectancy and fatal illnesses from conditions as diverse as stroke, heart disease, cancer, mental illness and gastro-intestinal disease.
The social gradient even operates in white-collar workplaces where employees are not poor or exposed to dangerous or hazardous work environments.
The report 'The Shape of Things To Come' finds that the industrial relations changes will inevitably widen inequality by pushing down the minimum wage and promoting individual work contracts. This creates a steeper social gradient.
"The evidence from epidemiologists is that there will be health costs arising from industrial relations reforms that will turbo-boost inequality".
"In the developed world, it is not the richest countries that have the best health, but the most egalitarian," the report says. For example, the United States is the wealthiest nation on earth, but only ranks 26th in terms of life expectancy.
Marmot's social gradient is not solely based on income distribution, but also looks at employee control, autonomy and satisfaction with work.
"Those in routine jobs with less control over their work and their lives had higher rates of heart disease, depression and other health problem,": the report says.
"The absence of reciprocity at work, rewards for effort, and outlets to control stress and balance work-life affects health risks such as coronary disease."
The wide-ranging report into the industrial relations changes also finds:
- that the award system will 'whither away' in the medium term, with employees in non-union workplaces the first to be transferred onto AWAs
- the number of Australian employees will fall as employer push more and more workers into contracting arrangements.
- New agreements will be narrowly focussed on wages and flexibility of hours, with the widespread loss of penalty rates and overtime.
- And a spread in the number of low-wage jobs, particularly in regional areas.
Unions NSW secretary John Robertson said the report was a valuable contribution to the debate around the future of work and would form the basis of the Unions NSW submission to the truncated Senate Inquiry.
The report by Centennial Consultancy finds that State Governments have been biased in favour of projects carried out by private consortiums because of a fear of public debt. As a result private companies are able to retrieve large returns, 16% in the case of the Cross City Tunnel, at taxpayer's expense.
Authors Professor Bob Walker and Betty Con Walker argue that past and present governments, in evaluating a series of projects, have attached an incorrect risk rating to major projects, meaning the public sector's superior capacity to finance debt is not taken into account.
"In effect, the public sector is being forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back because its one area of clear advantage - the cheaper rate of attracting finance - is discounted by those making the decision," they said.
This was particularly devastating, "when NSW taxpayers lost $2.5 billion because of an incorrect calculation of risk over the Fahey Government's sale of the State Bank."
Government guidelines that evaluate the risk of cost blowouts are not applied equally to Public and Private sector proposals, particularly as Private sector proposals change after the initial go ahead is given.
"This is what happened with the Cross City Tunnel," Professor Walker said in the report, "the contract shows initial costings for a shorter tunnel when a longer and more expensive tunnel was built." The report includes criticism of the Sydney Airport Link and the M2 Motorway.
Unions NSW secretary, John Robertson, called on the NSW Government not to proceed with any new PPPs until a review of the process was carried out.
"We have seen how taxpayers lose out with the current Cross City tunnel contract - but an even bigger concern is the process of deciding whether some of these projects should ever go ahead."
"If all we are doing is shifting viable public sector projects into the hands of private consortia and deferring the pay day for the taxpayer, then the model needs a real re-think."
Nine people, apprentices and fully trained chefs, have either been sacked or resigned since the Prime Minister grazed at Wollongong's City Beach Centre, earlier this month.
One told Workers Online they had been "amazed" to hear Howard on the theory of his brave, new workplace.
Another, 20-year old Paul Haines, said the operators of Dunes RCB, had demanded his last year's pay, plus a "royalty" for what he had learned, when he attempted to leave after a medical report put recurring nose bleeds down to stress on the job.
The former employees are seeking a range of remedies, through the LHMU, alleging their employer became abusive, and pressured them to resign, after learning they had joined a union.
All say they were required to work any day of the week and often well beyond 38 hours, without overtime or penalty payments.
South Coast Labor Council secretary, Arthur Rorris, questioned why the Office of the Employment Advocate appeared to have "rubber stamped" AWAs that dudded apprentices.
"The Government's own literature states that AWAs cannot over-ride apprenticeship conditions or state laws about their rights," Rorris said.
"It's interesting that this employer seems to have evaded those protections and got the AWA's seal of approval.
"These people were told to sign AWAs and, later, found they had traded their lives away."
Chairman John Shurbert misled mum and dad investors when he denied the bank was suing the FSU for its attempt to have a resolution passed at last year's AGM.
"I would say the issue with the union was not about shareholder activity, it was in relation to strike action," said Shurbert of the recently heard court case brought by the bank against the Financial Services Union.
"That is absolutely wrong," replied FSU deputy secretary Sharron Caddie, who described Shurbert's repeated denials as "amazing."
Both parties are waiting for a decision in the matter, which has been described by observers as a landmark case in shareholder activism.
At the 2004 AGM the FSU, which is a shareholder of the bank, raised a resolution requiring management to review the impact of its "Which New Bank" restructuring program on customers and staff. At least 3700 jobs have been lost under the program.
The bank, which was already suing the union over a number of strikes and other industrial action, argued the union was "coercing" it into signing a new enterprise agreement by rasing the resolution and by writing to board members.
It is the first time in Australia that a union has been sued for taking action as a shareholder.
Caddie and two FSU state secretaries attended this year's AGM to ask questions about staff pay and conditions, a marked difference from the 150 bank employees who protested outside of the 2004 AGM.
Caddie said the union wished to have a low-key presence at this year's AGM in an effort to encourage friendly relations with new chief executive, Ralph Norris, who took up his position just over a month ago.
Secretary, John Robertson, has asked foundation Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Don Edgar, to compile the report on the likely impact on families before the legislation is voted on by the Senate.
Speaking at a launch of an issues paper written for Unions NSW by Dr Marian Baird in Sydney's west, Mr Robertson said, "The Government promised Family First Senator Steve Fielding that it would produce a Family Impact Statement on each piece of proposed new legislation, but it has reneged on that promise,"
"If the government won't look at what its changes will do for Australian families, then we will do the job for them," he said.
The Family Impact Statement assesses the likely - and, later, the actual - impact the industrial relations changes will have on a range of different types of families by looking at the impacts on work conditions and worker's quality of life.
It will look at family relationships and the worker's ability to meet family responsibilities, as a parent, as a carer, as well as the worker's capacity to contribute to the community as a volunteer.
"All sorts of families in different circumstances will be examined - single earner; single Mums; dual income; low vs. high income; and families with and without children." Mr Robertson said.
Dr Baird, who also spoke at the launch said that it was time governments realized that the labor market was different to other markets, "it's not like the commodities market or the televisions market. It's made up of people who have working lives, relationships and families"
Dr. Don Edgar was the foundation Director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and is the author of a new book 'The War Over Work: the future of work and family' (Melbourne University Press 2005)
In this exclusive story, Workers Online, lifts the lid on what punters are really telling John Howard about his plot to rewrite the workplace rulebook.
Courtesy of a "Telstra Database Client Report", we can reveal it was an interesting day, if not a busy one, at Workchoices call centres around Australia on Thursday, October 20.
The Comments Report, standard practice in the call centre industry to give "clients" a feel for their "customers", shows the miserable quantity of calls was more than made up for in quality.
Telstra's first recorded comment for the day was logged at 8.37am.
"She wanted to join a union" was the terse message forwarded to Kevin Andrews' underlings at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.
Unfortunately, Telstra does not tell us what efforts were made to facilitate the "client's" requirement.
But, for Andrews, it would only get worse.
8:55 "Protest at the advertising cost involved with WorkChoices."
9.36 "Enquiring about the no-disadvantage test."
10.25 "Unhappy with the changes, felt like he was uninformed."
By 11.10 the punters were getting serious: "A man just rung and asked me to write this, from a card-carrying Liberal. This will put us in the wilderness for at least 20 years. The impact of this will be to kick the Liberal Government out."
The next recording wasn't made until 12.06: "Disgruntled caller was upset with the proposed changes."
The 13.07 provided some welcome relief: "Caller selling advertising. Directed to deal with DEWR direct."
Then, normal service resumed:
"I find the amount of money being spent on this advertising campaign is totally disgraceful."
"Larry objects to our tax dollars being spent on this campaign."
"The caller says the info is misleading because is reads it reads as if you will have a choice ..."
"I do understand that IR has evolved over the last 100 years and I believe there should be an independent enquiry .."
"Customer complained there are too many ads on the TV."
"Caller is not happy with the reforms."
"This money should be going to Pakistan instead of wasting it on this bullshit.'
By 19:23 the television-watching demographic was jumping on the blower:
"Customer wished to leave a comment. I just want to say too much money is being spent on propaganda and also make a note of the fact it shouldn't be spent on advertising but, instead, should be put towards people getting jobs. I'm sick and tired of seeing it ..."
19:56 "caller was not happy."
21:06 "Is the Liberal Party trying to insult the intelligence of the average working person with this saturation advertising?"
21:11 "reducing the duration of the ads does not reduce the insult."
21.32 "Protecting existing awards will mean nothing in years to come if those awards are undercut by the under class you are creating."
21:37 "Man was angry about it being done with taxpayers' money."
21:40 "Caller feels the government is spending way too much money on the ads promoting the WR reform (i.e. every time he watches tele he sees them. He believes that the money should go to mental health and people in need. Caller was very nice though.)
22:07 "Mrs Helen .... Ph (...) would like to register the comment she thinks it is outrageous that the government is funding this advertising campaign and paying call centre staff to man telephones until 10pm."
With that, apparently, the lines went silent.
On the very same day, Howard was telling ABC Radio listeners that his information indicated his workplace change campaign was working.
He said research showed the hearts-and-minds campaign had been "successful".
At least, he can't accuse Workers Online of reading his mail.
In an interview with ABC TV's Insiders programme, last Sunday, Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews confirmed Workers Online had been on the money.
"We don't make any excuse for this," Andrews said.
"We believe that the best form of welfare that a person can have is to have a job."
Andrews' public admission came three months after Workers Online broke the story, in our July 23 edition, under the headline "Centrelink to Cheat Workers".
At the time, Andrews' department refused to comment on a Centrelink staffer's claim that job seekers, who said "no" to contracts that undercut negotiated wages or existing conditions, would lose their benefits.
Under current rules, job seekers or single parents who are "breached" can be stripped of their welfare payments for eight weeks.
Our source said that provision would be used to force beneficiaries into sub-standard jobs.
Andrews made it clear "Workchoices" would do exactly that.
Under his legislation, long-standing entitlements like four weeks annual leave, public holidays and penalty rates can be done away with by employers, through the use of non-union AWAs.
The federal government, through its Office of the Employment Advocate, has been aggressively promoting AWAs in preference to collective, negotiated agreements.
Back in July, Unions NSW secretary, John Robertson, called on Andrews to come clean about his intention to cut welfare payments to people who chose not to sign below-par individual agreements.
The Minister sat on his hands for over three months, until the week before the legislation was due to be unveiled in Parliament.
Robertson said withholding benefits, on those grounds, would be a "significant step" toward the Americanisation of Australian society, based on a growing class of people recognised as the "working poor".
Colleen Hughes, 27, has launched legal action through her union, the LHMU, in a bid to hold Coughlan to account before the federal government passes laws that would give him a free hand.
The former director of the Kids Club Kindergarten in Cronulla's Wooloowara Rd, said the new owner of the business had instructed her to sack staff who did good jobs.
"If I had gone ahead and sacked them it would have meant we did not have the proper staffing which could have endangered our ability to operate under the law," Hughes explained.
"I had no reason to sack anyone. I've been working there for seven years and would have known if there were any staff problems but everyone working there loved the children and worked hard for them."
Coughlan was fingered in federal parliament as one of people involved with the notorious Metro Shelf company that folded in 2003 and took more millions of dollars of workers entitlements, including $800,000 in unpaid super contributions, down the gurgler with it.
Metro Shelf was one of a number of companies operated by Hommous Khoshaba, and Paul and Craig Coughlan, who set up an intricate web of relationships that could see workers, at the same site, employed by different legal entities.
Four years earlier, Metro companies had been involved in a spectacular dispute with the CFMEU. Workers and picketers joined forces, on that occasion, to defend regular employees the company was trying to replace with labour hire casuals.
Local MP, Robert McClelland blew the whistle on the Coughlans' modus operandi in a parliamentary statement in August, 2003.
"In the years before he placed the Metro group of companies into voluntary administration, Paul Coughlan went to his accountant and arranged an asset protection scheme quarantining his family's extensive property interests through an intricate web of transactions," McClelland said.
"In the months before the administration, Paul Coughlan and his sons, Craig and Jason, transferred their employees to subsidiaries that had no assets. In the weeks before the administration, Paul Coughlan and his sons presented a financial report which said that the subsidiaries had promised not to call on the holding company should they themselves collapse.
"In the hours before Metro Group collapsed, Paul, Craig, and Jason Coughlan spirited their luxury cars--including Mercedes and cruisers--away from the family's million-dollar waterside mansion at Burraneer Bay.
"Despite his family's massive financial resources, when Paul Coughlan finally announced the administration on 10 July he said that there was no money to pay the more than $9 million his 300 employees were owed in entitlements--including more than $800,000 in superannuation which had gone unpaid for a year.
"Last week several of his other unsecured creditors, small businesses and tradespeople who had been supplying Metro Group, announced that they themselves would be forced into administration because of the non-payment of debts by Metro."
LHMU president, Jim Lloyd, said Hughes' unfair dismissal case could be one of the last heard by the Industrial Relations Commission.
"Once John Howard passes his laws people like Colleen Hughes will not be able to contest unfair dismissals before the Commission," Lloyd said.
Journalists at Fairfax newspapers rejected the job cuts as unnecessary and have demanded senior executives cop a 20 per cent pay cut and hand back performance bonuses.
Fairfax said the decision to offer redundancies was based on the "lacklustre" performance of its metropolitan newspapers.
This is despite former CEO Fred Himler being given a $6 million golden handshake after stepping down this year and new CEO David Kirk accepting a $1.2 million sign-on bonus.
The sackings were one of the first actions of new CEO and former All Black halfback, David Kirk.
Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's Alan Kennedy told the Crikey newsletter staff were planning "full out assault on the board to expose them as people with no media experience who are plundering the joint."
Journalists went on strike from Thursday afternoon to Friday morning last week and union officials say further strikes are possible if Fairfax pushes for forced redundancies.
AMWU national secretary, Doug Cameron, delivered the message to industry heavyweights on the opening day of an Australian Financial Review-sponsored conference in Melbourne, last week.
Joining a panellists from John Howard's IR cheer squad, including executives of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, Cameron told business it was on a collision course with core Australian values.
"Australian business is making a historic decision to tear up a social contract based on fairness and the sharing of economic success," Cameron said.
"This package of IR changes is a winner-take-all prescription and that's what you have signed up to.
"Business has chosen to line up with something that is deeply unpopular and will impact adversely on families around the country.
"You can spend another $20 million or $40 million on selling this package but you can't remove the stench that surrounds it and that is something the community will not forget."
Cameron asked corporates to consider what their support for an agenda of income cutting and undermining family-friendly entitlements would mean for social cohesiveness, against a backdrop of record profits and sky-rocketing executive salaries.
He made his address within days of Qantas threatening to use the legislation to shed 3000 Australian jobs, and barely a month after the Commonwealth Bank sent its CEO, David Murray, packing with a $17 million bonus.
Fellow panellist, Peter Hendy from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, has urged Canberra to go even further in restricting collective bargaining, minimum conditions and the ability to challenge unfair sackings.
Cameron warned that government's taxpayer-funding ad campaign wouldn't wash and that, sooner or later, business be held accountable for the damage inflicted.
"You think what you are doing is clever," he told his audience. "But this is a historic change, and our campaign won't finish when you get your legislation through and the Government's advertising is finished."
"The very civil liberties we're trying to protect are being eroded by these laws," secretary, John Robertson, said.
Robertson said it was not inconceivable that the Government could use draconian anti-terrorism laws, especially sedition provisions, to intervene in industrial disputes.
He encouraged all unions to put out material on the implications of the terrorism laws for democracy and workplace rights.
"It's like the WorkChoices legislation - what you see before you is not what it seems," he warned.
The terror laws will be introduced to parliament in the same week that draconian anti-building worker legislation, to be policed by a special standing Commission, becomes effective.
The "Building Industry Improvement Act" laws make all forms of industrial action unlawful, including safety and political campaigns, and green bans that have saved large blocks of urban environment.
The Act gives an industry police force the power to interrogate workers about industrial meetings and denies workers the right to silence.
Workers can be jailed or fined up to $33,000 if they fail to produce documents, answer questions.
In striking similarity to anti-terrorism laws, John Howard's Building Industry Commission can instruct workers not to divulge the contents of any interrogation session to family or friends.
CFMEU National Secretary John Sutton said contracting provisions amounted to enforcing the government's ideological agenda through blackmail.
"Companies with established standards, companies who meet with their workforce, will be blacklisted by this crude policy," he said.
"There's no doubt that this is becoming a neo-fascist government - some of this stuff is a straight denial of civil liberties and civil rights.
CSR and Midalco went to the High Court to get the compensation back from Beverley Thompson, after her husband died.
The High Court overturned a Dust Diseases Tribunal ruling that had granted mesothelioma sufferer and former asbestos factory worker, John Thompson, the sum to care for his disabled wife.
Beveley Thompson, 63, suffers from arthritis in the spine and is unable to do household tasks, such as vacuuming, cleaning and gardening, which her husband did until his condition took over.
Mr Thompson worked at the factory, owned by CSR and supplied with asbestos by Midalco, between 1960 and 1963. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002 and died in November, 2003.
Mrs Thompson said her husband had gone through "pure agony" and "lived with the fear for years", knowing his contact with asbestos would eventually strike him down.
The Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW ruling ordered CSR and Midalco to pay $465,899.49 in damages to Mr Thompson in April, 2003, including $165,480 in special damages to care for his wife.
However, the High Court ruled there should be special damages to care for disabled family members.
"Without that money it's going to be difficult to employ people to do that [do the chores she cannot do] for me," Mrs Thompson said.
Alex Stuart, of Alex Stuart & Associates, which represented John Thompson's estate in the case, said it was a terrible decision for workers.
"We're yet to see an increase in general damages, but it is unlikely that it will reach the position it was at," Stuart said.
"He [Mr Thompson] wanted to die with peace of mind."
Centrelink staff take more sickies than anybody else in Australia, prompting management to buy the fitness-inducing gizmos for staff, as well as sending them to health seminars.
The department has also tied a one per cent increase in its current enterprise agreement pay offer with a one day a year drop in sick leave across the department.
But the Public Sector Union says the high number of sick days at Centrelink is because departmental policies lead to abuse from clients.
"To think you can dangle money in front of people - people are deeply insulted and annoyed at the assumption behind it," a CPSU spokesman said.
The spokesman said confusing and ever-changing policy at the department set clients off.
"They need to look at why people get annoyed - and it could be that they're dissatisfied with policy," he said.
"Another problem is that low staffing levels are leading to high levels of queue rage."
Mainstream media have reported that Centrelink staff have been assaulted by colostomy bag wielding pensioners. Other customers have resorted to the use of dead snakes and firebombs to express their frustrations.
Day for the Family
National Day of Community Protest on Tuesday 15 November.
The Coalition government is planning to radically change Australia's industrial relations system. In the coming weeks, the Coalition wants to push through new laws which will unfairly curtail your rights at work, cut the amount of time you can spend with family, and erode your job security.
At a time when many working families are struggling to keep their heads above water, existing pay and conditions will not be protected.
Australians will be worse off under the Government's 'like it or lump it' proposals, where:
* Companies that employ under 100 workers will be exempt from unfair dismissal laws, leaving 3.6 million Australians unprotected;
* Any worker can be put on an AWA individual contract at any time that removes conditions and cuts take home pay;
* No Australian worker will have any legally enforceable right to bargain collectively with their employer; and
* Work will unfairly intrude on family life when employers can demand greater flexibility from workers with little or no improvement in pay and conditions.
For more information go to: http://actu.asn.au/work_rights/get_involved/hookup_flyer.html
Union Postcard from America
Amanda Tattersall is currently in North America doing research on community unionism. She will be back in Australia soon for a brief visit and is keen to share what she has learned and observed in the last few months visiting many different organisations doing very interesting work.
Unions NSW is pleased to host a seminar with Amanda between 3.30pm and 5pm on Friday, 4th November, in the Ground Floor Training Room, 377 Sussex St, Sydney.
This will be a very timely discussion as the Australian Union Movement gears up for the second phase of its campaign opposing the Federal Government's workplace changes. We need to develop sustainable opposition in workplaces and the community that build real power for ordinary working people and their families. Amanda will talk about different union and community based campaigns she has observed, what worked, what didn't and the implications for the current Australian context.
She will briefly share her experiences of the fracturing of the American labor movement (she attended both the AFL-CIO Convention and the Change to Win Conventions). She will also address the issue of union recognition ballots and how that election system for union recognition operates in America.
There will be plenty of time for discussion and for those interested we can continue that discussion over a drink at a nearby hotel.
Please RSVP by the 2nd November to Alison Peters at Unions NSW on 0425 231 814 or by email [email protected]
Rung the WorkChoices hotline (there's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one) to ask what would happen when I move to another employer soon, could I keep on an EBA drawn up by the union? I asked to which I was told repeatedly, "yes, you have the right to join a union," I said I know that I'm asking can a union draw up an EBA for an employee who doesn't wish to commence on an AWA. To which I was told "I'm going to have to pass that on to my supervisor" 3 weeks later I'm still waiting! What hope do we have if the people who are meant to be giving us "the facts" know bugger all??
Andrew Martin, NSW
Dear Prime Minister,
I wish you could have the privilege of experiencing unemployment or work in casual work with no protection or bad pay or even work in one of the industries that your decisions help to destroy. Then tell us what it is like to live in Australia and describe your quality of life?
Our country and quality of life is going down the toilet and it is not the country the generation before me aspired it to be nor did I.
What a waste of money, people, ideas, and lives.
Tracy, NSW
In spite of a weak showing through massive advertising spending designed to butter up workers, the message remains the same, prepare to 'sign or join the unemployment line'. It's all about cutting costs for big business and attracting foreign investment. That is what is really meant by 'the best thing for all Australians is a strong economy.'
Take their major push to introduce PPP's, add to that the threat of major job losses at Telstra and Qantas. Other big business supporters include Woolworths, Coles, and the Macquarie bank are no doubt also eagerly awaiting in the wings for the opportunity to pounce on foreign investment opportunities.
It's as though Mr Howard is committed and has no other option rather than press for the changes his mates have been pressing for for so long now.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that these changes were originally presented as a solution for small business owners and operators. In my opinion, this was never the case and the PM needs to justify his position.
How can anybody not be insulted by his moves, here we are - we pay money into superannuation funds that in turn invest in big business who pay their executives obscene amounts of money to cut jobs. And, get this, Telstra confirm my opinion, by putting shareholder dividends ahead of jobs in order to pay for essential upgrades that were ignored by the Federal Government and the previous managements.
No doubt some debt stricken state governments are secretly desperate to see these changes implemented, however, they would never admit it.
Nice try, FAIL!
Kind regards
John McPhilbin
I note, upon reading some of your references to "HOWARD Government", being as we know the liberal party, and in every sense portrays and acts that way, liberally, but not in the best interest of it's constituents.
And, I note further your "hope it is a labour government", which in itself sounds reasonable, but alas, the labour government is no longer representative of the "worker" or "little man", or anyone else that hasn't got a truly "wealthy" bank account.
It appears as though both parties are utilizing the same political tactics, with the same goals well and truly being prescribed by who ever it is that is formulating their policies and decisions.
Neither party is representative of any of the majority of the population, as can be witnessed by the decisions and policies that they adhere to, regardless of common sense, common decency and impartiality.
I would strongly recommend the removal of the "legal profession" from the administration of either party, for they are a breed of their own, and do in fact practise openly in emptying their clients pockets, under the pretext of "looking after their best interests", then leading them up the "garden path" to a stage whereby, there are "no more funds", then they aptly suggest, that they should no longer pursue the matter.
If you want a better "voice" in the control of the decision making for our communities, then the best avenue of attack, is to select the party that you want to join, and participate in the decision making, but in order to make it an effective voice, you will have to "stack " all the branches and all the meetings with all your pre-paid or pre-promised cronies, and then "reject" every motion that is forwarded to "your head office", and simply impose your decisions on the party, regardless of their wishes.
By the time you reach this level, which is morally below ground level, you will have your own dictatorship, much in alignment of the present parties and governments.
There should be much more open and public government, and much more opportunity for the "voter" to have an active voice in their formulation and enactment.
Plain and simple, sack the scum at the top and put in place a more responsible and impartial, executive and administration ... No solicitors or legal eagles, no school teachers, or union delegates... and hopefully no more clowns.
Ken Buckley, NSW
That's right - after much debate about how the changes will affect the Australian way of life; concerns have now been raised that they will be a threat to Australian life itself.
Drawing on the field of social epidemiology - that is the study of how social conditions affect public health - ACIRRT has painted a picture of a society where the gap between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor will widen.
At the heart of the analysis is research showing that it is income distribution and not national wealth that determines a nation's material well-being - which explains why the wealthiest nation on Earth, the USA, ranks just 26th in life expectancy.
The key is what Sir Michael Marmot, a world renowned Australian scientist - has called the social gradient; a calculation of public health based on occupational and social hierarchy.
What ACIRRT concludes is that, under the federal government's industrial relations, changes will increase the social gradient - that is, the gap between the haves and have-nots; with a huge pool of low-cost labour in insecure, unskilled jobs with few work rights.
While there has been much debate of the social cost of this push down the American road, the threats to weekends, annual leave, secure work and the impact of on family and community life, the Marmot analysis is something else again.
What this research says is that labour market deregulation will have a profound impact on the national health in ways we haven't even begun talking about.
These are big issues based on rigorous science that will be easy for the government to trivialise and dismiss.
But, at the very least, it shows why there needs to be genuine community debate about these changes, not just a one week power play, a bodgy Senate Inquiry and a government waiting to rubber stamp major changes to our society.
The Senator, who would come into play if Barnaby Joyce gets an attack of political consciousness before it's too late, Steve Fielding, has been rebuffed in his call for a Family Impact Statement.
That work is now being undertaken by Dr Don Edgar, foundation director of the National Institute of Family Studies, who Unions NSW has commissioned to produce his own analysis.
Both Dr Edgar's work and ACIRRT's report are important research, not just in the current political debate, but in placing on record the damage to Australian society that is about to be done.
The polls say the Australian community does not support these changes and targeted research shows they are deeply confused and sceptical - and the expenditure of $40 million in taxpayer funded advertising has only deepened their trepidation.
What Marmot's research tells us is that the fears are probably even more justified than people realise.
Peter Lewis
Editor
I note, upon reading some of your references to "HOWARD Government", being as we know the liberal party, and in every sense portrays and acts that way, liberally, but not in the best interest of it's constituents.
And, I note further your "hope it is a labour government", which in itself sounds reasonable, but alas, the labour government is no longer representative of the "worker" or "little man", or anyone else that hasn't got a truly "wealthy" bank account.
It appears as though both parties are utilizing the same political tactics, with the same goals well and truly being prescribed by who ever it is that is formulating their policies and decisions.
Neither party is representative of any of the majority of the population, as can be witnessed by the decisions and policies that they adhere to, regardless of common sense, common decency and impartiality.
I would strongly recommend the removal of the "legal profession" from the administration of either party, for they are a breed of their own, and do in fact practise openly in emptying their clients pockets, under the pretext of "looking after their best interests", then leading them up the "garden path" to a stage whereby, there are "no more funds", then they aptly suggest, that they should no longer pursue the matter.
If you want a better "voice" in the control of the decision making for our communities, then the best avenue of attack, is to select the party that you want to join, and participate in the decision making, but in order to make it an effective voice, you will have to "stack " all the branches and all the meetings with all your pre-paid or pre-promised cronies, and then "reject" every motion that is forwarded to "your head office", and simply impose your decisions on the party, regardless of their wishes.
By the time you reach this level, which is morally below ground level, you will have your own dictatorship, much in alignment of the present parties and governments.
There should be much more open and public government, and much more opportunity for the "voter" to have an active voice in their formulation and enactment.
Plain and simple, sack the scum at the top and put in place a more responsible and impartial, executive and administration ... No solicitors or legal eagles, no school teachers, or union delegates... and hopefully no more clowns.
Ken Buckley, NSW
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|