The plea is made in letter from the CNRT's National Political Commission representative for Australia Joao Viegas Carrascalao to Democrats' Senator Vicki Bourne sent earlier this month.
"We would like to make you aware of the difficulties of another of our strongest supporters, the trade unions - difficulties over which you have some influence," the letter says.
"We have known that many of the tremendous actions they took on behalf of our people in recent weeks are against the law in Australia.
When the massacres began, most Australians expressed sympathy with our plight. However the unions were one of the few groups that had both the political will and the degree of organisation required to take action and we believe that their initiatives were an important factor in propelling the government itself into action.
"Now the government unfortunately intend to make it virtually impossible for unions to take any solidarity action. Whilst of course your own national affairs are of your business, such moves sit awkwardly with the idea of freedom that all of us are trying to achieve.
"We may or may not agree with the viewpoint of the unions at all times, but to make their effective function all but impossible is a worrying development from a democratic point of view."
Senate Inquiry Comes to Sydney
Meanwhile, retired unionists presented young workers with a log of hard-won conditions they had secured but were now under threat, in a ceremony outside the Senate inquiry sitting in Sydney today.
Former waterfront boss Tas Bull, FSU official Lynne Poulsen and Metalworkers official Tom Shiner addressed the crowd about the need to stop Reith stripping away the workers' inheritance.
Apprentice Connor Gorman spoke of how it was harder than ever for workers to protect themselves, particularly when they were starting out in a job.
Inside the hearing, Labor Council assistant secretary John Robertson told the committee that the NSW industrial relations model was one that was based on consultative and collective arrangements that are balanced and fair.
"The federal government should be looking at the statistics on strike action in NSW before embracing the Reith model," Robertson said.
In other evidence today, the Community and Public Sector union claimed Peter Reith was breaking his own workplace laws by refusing to negotiate with it on behalf of its members in the Department of Employment, Workplace relations and Small Business.
This is despite 70 per cent of staff being union members and staff union representatives having been elected unopposed to consultative committee to negotiate a union agreement with the Department.
"Mr Reith likes to talk about choice but his own Department is ignoring the choice made by its own employees," CPSU national secretary Wendy Caird says.
"The choice for employees is to take it or leave it. He is intent on treating his own staff in the same way Patricks did on the waterfront last year."
Each staff member will receive two tickets to the party, under a deal struck between Opera House management and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance this week.
In separate votes both Opera Australia performers and general Opera House staff this week approved the deals covering work on New Years Eve.
General Opera House staff have agreed to a deal which includes sliding pay rates for the night; improving on the normal rate of $25 per hour to $62.50 per hour until 4pm, $87.50 between 4pm and midnight, $124 per hour between midnight and 4am and $150 per hour between 4am and 8am.
General staff will also receive a $100 loyalty payment, free parking, free food and drink on the night and two tickets for family to attend the party on the Opera House forecourt.
Management will also provide 60 beds for staff who are unable to leave the site at the end of their shift. And security staff who finish at 6pm New Years Eve and start at 6am the next day will be able to sleep on site and attend the forecourt party.
Performers, orchestra and staging workers employed by Opera Australia to perform a concert on New Years eve will receive a $500 cash bonus on top of their normal wage, plus a $100 bonus if ticket sales reach 90 per cent.
They will also receive a free ticket to the Gala Concert for their partner, two free tickets to the Opera Australia party valued at $850, free parking and a cabcharge home. They will also receive childcare assistance to the value of $250.
"These are innovative deals suited to the special needs of the workers and their families who will be disrupted on New Years Eve," MEAA state secretary Michel Hryce says.
"The detailed negotiations involved has also been a good tool in organising Opera House staff and Opera Australia members."
According the recent UK survey, only 2.3 per cent of workers now take a full lunch break as the demands of work overload place increasing pressure on workers health.
To highlight the problem of long working hours, NSW unions will this week stage 'The Big Lunch Break' - a picnic for city office workers in Hyde Park.
To the backdrop of ambient trance music, workers will be encouraged to chill out or learn about the benefits of stress relief techniques such as massage and meditation.
A limited number of Peter Reith stress balls will also be available.
The Big Lunch Break -Hyde Park north, 12-2pm Wednesday November 27
For further details contact your union or The Union Shop on 9264 1691
Electrical Trade Union state secretary Bernie Riordan says the defeat of Kennett can be targeted to the "anti-social and anti-labour policies which he has inflicted upon working class Victorians over the last seven years."
"It is the firm belief of the ETU that the Government in NSW should heed an important lesson from the Victorian election," Riordan says.
"The issue to be learnt was an issue of major debate at the recent ALP Conference, that is, that compulsory tendering is not palatable out there amongst the general workforce.
"It is inappropriate and immoral to undermine the working class of society by trying to drive their wages and conditions to the lowest common denominator."
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the change of government in Victoria means that NSW can no longer justify its competitive tendering policies on what Kennett is doing in Victoria.
Costa says this view will be put to the Premier at the first meeting of the State Labour Advisory Council early next month.
Combet told an SDA conference that the ACTU would lodge the next Living Wage Claim before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in November.
"The ACTU believes that a claim of $24 is both reasonable and economically responsible," Combet says. "Low paid people in the community must not be left behind. They deserve to share in the nation's wealth."
Combet says with economic growth remains strong, inflation is well within the limits sought by the Reserve Bank and productivity growth has been sustained meaning the claim will not cost jobs.
Combet, who officially takes the reins in February says the Howard Government had in just a few years created a country where there are clear winners and losers.
'We are now a country where the national government has no commitment to creating a fairer society, where one group is favoured over another group.
"It is a country where the values of the market place have become universal values intruding into every corner of Australian life - witness the proposed higher education fees'.
"Rather than protecting or helping people who have been hurt by economic change the government has attacked awards, eroded job security, imposed an unfair new tax, and attacked the protection that unions can provide."
He says his most immediate organisational priority will be the establishment of the ACTU Organising Centre, which was foreshadowed in the recently released report unions@work.
TWU members blockaded Stramit Industries this week to highlight the plight of the woman, Melissa Jane Jones who was required to run steel between Orange, Molong, Cowra, Sydney and back to Orange.
When she declined about the hours and refused to pick up another run for Stramit, she was banned from delivering any more steel for Stramit and her job was terminated.
The TWU has now lodged a dispute over the matter with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, arguing the work practises are in breach of health and safety laws.
TWU state secretary Tony Sheldon says these sort of working conditions should be illegal. "Not only are they in breach of every driving hour regulation, but they are forcing drivers like Melissa to risk their lives and the lives of all Australian road users just to make a living," Sheldon says.
With 62 per cent of all truck drivers saying they are working dangerous hours, the TWU is calling on the federal government to hold clients responsible for the demands they place on truckies.
The campaign has secured the backing of new Labor transport spokesman Martin Ferguson and the Association of Concerned Families of Australian Truckies.
Association chair Judith Penton told Labor Council that truckies' families lived in fear of being told their loved one had been involved in a fatal accident.
"In the transport industry clients consistently demand drivers meet impossible deadlines which mean they have no choice but to speed or spend more hours behind the wheel," Penton says.
"Clients have all the power and control in this industry and still they continue to deny they are ultimately responsible for what happens on our roads."
The TWU is planning further protests at the site of transport industry clients who force drivers or transport companies to put their lives on the line. They are planning a day of protest every month.
The TWU and CFAT will also hold a dual memorial service for truckies killed on NSW roads this Tuesday, October 26 in Grafton and Albury.
While not prescribing the terms under which funding would be available, Reith's speech revealed the substance of the Government's agenda for industrial
relations in universities. He targeted the following areas reform:
- inclusion of Australian Workplace Agreements,
- making processes for redundancy and staff transfer more `timely and effective'
- development of classification levels at departmental or faculty level making pay rises contingent revenue increases
- provision for non-union agreements
- removing or streamlining processes for consultation
`This is a very sweeping reform agenda which completely undermines university autonomy, and reveals the Government's ideological obsession,' says NTEU General Secretary Graeme McCulloch.
`By seeking to dictate to universities the terms of their enterprise agreements, the Government is holding the sector to ransom,' he continued.
"David Kemp has acknowledged that universities desperately need an injection of money to assist in meeting the costs of payrises and information technology infrastructure.
" The Government should make that funding available now, and not conditional upon staff and managers succumbing to its ideologically-driven agenda.'
Mr McCulloch says Reith's comments about `collegiality' masking poor performance and accountability revealed a contempt for the culture of higher education, and a refusal to acknowledge the significant productivity increases that have been achieve over the past decade.
"Collegiality is about the partnerships between staff and students which make the educational experience rewarding and valuable to the entire community.
"It's about the right to speak without fear or favour, and to participate in the governance structures of our higher education institutions. In its place, Reith and Kemp want to create a culture of fear. They are, by their actions, fanning the flames of division and discord.'
"Nobody should be fooled - this debate is not about increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of universities. It's about eroding the right of staff to organise collectively and to question the agenda of the Government.'
The NTWU has called on the Vice-Chancellors to defend the higher education sector from this attack, and to distance themselves from the Government's plans.
In his speech the Minister praised UNSW, the University of Queensland, the ANU and the University of Melbourne for putting up non-union ballots and seeking to make payrises contingent on revenue growth.
`University staff have rejected these options resoundingly. The Vice-Chancellors of these universities should immediately make their position on the Government's proposals clear.'
This week thousands attended rallies around Australia calling on the Government to reverse its destructive policies on higher education.
NSW Fair Trading Minister John Watkins told State Parliament this week that Joe Hockey and conservative state ministers had blocked his plan at the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs.
Under the Watkins plan, banking licences would be subject to community service obligations, which could include:
- fee-free transactions for those receiving government pensions and benefits.
- service standards for banking services in rural and regional areas.
- and safe, accessible and easy use of automatic tekller machines and EFTPO for aged and disabled consumers.
Watkins had also suggested an existing regulator be appointed to rate each bank and public a community banking ranking to help consumers make informed decisions. Such systems exiust in the US.
"Unfortunately at the ministerial council only Queensland and Tasmania were prepared to support my plan," Watkins told Parliament.
"The Commonwealth Minister, Joe Hockey, acted as an apologist for the banks. He refused to accept the plan from NSW and pulled rank on the conservative staes."
Watkins called on the Prime Minister to pull Hockey into line and give the proposal serious consideration.
More Details Sought on Westpac Cuts
Meanwhile, Finance Sector Union has called on Westpac to provide detailed information on what areas are targeted for job cuts following the announcement last week that 3,000 jobs would be cut across the organsiation.
The union understands that more than 300 positions will disappear in Victoria and more than 700 positions will disappear from NSW regional bank.
Sources in the bank have told the union that 800 jobs or more will disappear from Queensland although Employee Relations deny that the figure will be this high. At least 200 positions will disappear from Western Australia Unknown positions will disappear from Corporate.
The FSU has been informed that the work from approximately 295 positions made redundant in Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria will be centralised in NSW.
Yet a letter from the bank to staff in NSW says that only 80 positions will be created in NSW to cope with this work. The Bank has so far been unable to answer the union's queries on how 80 staff in NSW are expected to cope with work previously done by 295 people.
Opposing the amendments to the Federal Magistrates Bill in parliament this week, Labor's industrial relations spokesman Arch Bevis warned the changes would give the magistrates Court the power to grant injunctions for stop work orders under section 127 of the Workplace Relations Act.
Bevis argues the move will encourage forum shopping from the Federal Court as well as State Supreme Courts which already have jurisdiction to hear these matters.
And he says there's suspicions about the motives behind the amendments, given that some employers have complained that the current jurisdictions are not inclined to intervene on their behalf.
"This is not about judicial management," Bevis told Parliament, "this is not about ease of access; this is about driving an ideological political agenda which this government has pursued in all areas of activity."
Democrats have signalled they'll support the legislation, but Bevis says they don't appear to understand the full implications of the Bill.
News of the resignation came as the Labor Council was due to hear a report back on of the troubles, which had seen the movement split into two peak bodies following a disputed leadership ballot earlier in the year.
Labor Council president John Whelan told delegates that "in my 20 odd years I have never seen anything to match the level of bitterness down there."
"Hopefully with good will the two bodies will be able to pull together and resolve their differences."
Resolution on the divisions in the Union Movement on the NSW South Coast as a result of a report from The President Com. J. Whelan and Com. T. Bull
1. Welcome the resignation of Com. P. Matters from the Secretaryship of the South Coast Labor Council (SCLC) (Effective March 2000) as a first step towards reuniting the Union Movement on the NSW South Coast.
2. We call on Unions affiliated with the South Coast Labor Council and the Illawarra Council of Trade Unions (ICTU) to meet as soon as possible to discuss issues of common interest.
3. To that end, Unions affiliated with SCLC and ICTU should nominate three representatives each to meet under the Chairmanship of Comrades John Whelan and Tom McDonald (or in the absence of T. McDonald, T. Bull) at an early date.
4. As those discussions progress it would be expected that Unions affiliated with ICTU should re-affiliate with the SCLC
5. We note the earlier offer, now repeated of the Labor Council of New South Wales to assist the SCLC restore its viability.
Kim Beazley will join a team of comics and actors as the warm-up for the night, in a special Republican forum, starting from 8,30pm.
With great music and a bar open till late, this could be last great part of under Queen Lizzie's reign. It will culminate in a rendition of the "It's Time" song that has been specially re-recorded by leading contemporary musicians for the campaign.
Tickets from the Metro, the Union Shop of from member for Sydney Tania Plibersik.
Dear Madam/Sir,
Having been to a number of the planning meetings for the ACTU computer deal, and knowing as a matter of fact that your representatives have also found their way into these meetings, I find it unbelievable that you continue to peddle something that is not factual in your publication.
The statement that you will have to 'hang up' and connect to the internet using a different service provider in order to access other services and products has no basis in fact, and subsequently appears as though it has been 'made up' to further some other agenda.
It has been discussed and clarified hundreds of times that the portal will certainly advertise particular, chosen sites. The access to the internet, however, will be completely free and unfettered. In the same way that 'The Age' web site doesn't have links to the 'Herald-Sun' website - this doesn't mean that people viewing 'The Age' website cannot access the 'Herald-Sun' website.
I have to assume that there is some more sinister motive for your opposition to this plan than those you have publically talked about. Unless you are all just plain ignorant about the operations of the internet.
You are doing irrepairable damage to the integrity of your news service by publishing such rubbish.
Sincerely,
Jason Cleeland
Ed's Reply
Our apologies. The comment made was an as yet unconfirmed report from a third party, and we should have pulled our heads in.
The problem with the Virtual Communities deal is that we have found it hard to get a straight answer about how it will work.
We have so far been told the following:
1. Commercial organisations will be paying large sums to become the key ecommerce vendors on the site. They will get prime position on the VC home page. A user of the site will not necessarily know that the vendors have paid VC for pole position on their union's portal.
2. The union portal will be largely controlled by a private entity, VC, that is aiming to make it's money from ecommerce and advertising sales, although unions will provide advice about content. The portal is of course separate from a union's own home page, over which they will havefull control.
Our understanding is that VC will be a 'restricted' community. This is not like the 'Age site', but more like AOL, where the user navigates through a VC world with a mix of infotainment, links to member sub-sites and product sale offers from vendors, before getting to the internet. A worse scenario is that internet access beyond the VC 'world' requires jumping through significant hoops.
We would like to know the true details of this key aspect, but have so far been unsuccessful in getting full disclosure.
Our concern in all this is that we see the portal as the primary thing. In Sweden when the peak trade union body offered cheap computers for members they retained full control over the portal.
In the US, where the AFL-CIO has just announced they will be offering union members a cheap computers and internet connection deal, they have indicated that the portal involved will be a union controlled portal. It will not sold off to a separate commercial venture.
The final extraordinary aspect of the VC deal is that it provide for a five+five year (ie. 10 year life) contract with the ACTU.
Extraordinary because, in the internet world, five years is a lifetime (let alone 10) , and technology, internet access and a range of things are likely to change dramatically in that time.
Cheap computers - OK. Cheap internet access - OK. But retain the portal. It must be seen as core union business, not something to lease off to commercial vendors."
Dear Peter,
I thoroughly enjoyed your rousing article on the Republic question in the latest issue of Workers Online. I enjoyed your use of language everyone can understand. It leaves no doubt as to the mood of the article. It was very refreshing.
To me, the Monarchists are like adults that have never grown up and still cling to their mummies apron strings, scared witless of that "big bad world" out there.
Brother in ARMs
Al Gordon
ARM's Heavy Price
Dear Peter,
I too view with disdain the tripe espoused by the Loyalists in the Republican ' debate '. I say ' debate ' given the ARM model is all we are able to consider on the form of the Republic.
For this, the ARM will pay a heavy price post the vote when the recriminations fly thick and fast as to the failure of the Republican cause.
Yet Peter, do not not lose any sleep over the ACM and their inherently dishonest campaign.
As a journalist dedicated to that profession, you will find the recently released "The New Prince: Machiavelli Updated for the Twenty-First Century" by Dick Morris, a fascinating read. Also, given your concern over the No campaign the following quote from the book may be of comfort;
"The public reserves to itself the right to decide what to accept and what to reject. The slant of the media does little to influence their decisions; it is overwhelmingly the content of the ideas that matters".
The good news for you, Peter, is that the Monarchists will be seen for what they are; prisoners of the past and bereft of any vision.
Yet the news for the ARM is equally bleak. Their own polling shows 70 % of Australians want to directly vote for the President.
To arrogantly jam their model down the collective throats of Australians will witness a feeling for Turnbull et al that will approximate that visited upon Jeff Kennett.
Incidentally, I thought your Barmy Army idea had plenty of merit. That the spin-doctors at ARM chose to dismiss it hardly surprises; they did not think of it themselves.
The anger that will be evident when the model is voted down will be palpable. Those Republicans that reluctantly supported it will feel that they were press-ganged down that path.
I for one, will thoroughly enjoy the retribution that will be directed at the toffs that make up the ARM.
Yours faithfully
ANDREW WILLIAMSON
Billy Deane for President
With the referendum coming very soon, I'm concerned about the possibility of the NO case winning because of the gross misrepresentations being peddled by monarchists.
I believe it is vital for us to have our own Australian head of state and the proposed republican model will be a great first step. If this first step is not taken now, I fear it will be many years before we have another opportunity to replace the monarchy.
One way we can help to win the YES case is to actively promote the nomination of Sir William Deane, especially in the remaining weeks before the referendum, as our first Australian head of state.
Over the last few years he has impressed myself and many others as a man worthy to be our first head of state.
There has been a lot of misinformation about selecting the President of Australia. By promoting the nomination of Sir William, we can help people understand they have a say in the process of choosing a president. We can also remove the fear people have about the nomination process by reasoning that the republican model can evolve as long as the first step is taken.
Thus I am involved with the DEANE for PRESIDENT campaign. The aim is to get people committed to the republic by signing a petition requesting Sir William be our first President.
Have a look at http://www.presidentdeane.com and pass the message on to others.
Ewen Finnane
Dear Editor
Can you tell me how I can get a job at the Labor Council of NSW They never seem to be advertised but I think I may be just whom you are looking for!
I'm blonde ,blue eyed and stand 12cm high in heels.I have a great wardrobe I am very versatile.And Oh I don't speak back.So come on heres your gal available at any Toys R Us.
Love and Kisses
Union Barbie
PS Oh and one more thing I've been around for more than thirty five years so I hope this won't count against me.
Dear Editor
I am writing to protest over recent reported comments made by Michael Costa over the age of the proposed candidate for ACTU President.
Why should such jobs be only the preserve of my friend Union Barbie.I am a young (alright youngish),well groomed ,polite goodlooking intelligent SNAG who would just love a job in the NSW union movement leadership.But between the proposed Barbies and the existing Bruces wheres the room for me?
Why is it that only the women leaders in the trade union movement have to be young 'fresh and attractive.What about the guys.Please Michael give positive discrimination a go for us guys as well.
(Hopefully)
Your Friend
Ken
PS You can contact me at any Toys R Us store near you.
Here's what Howard said: "You can't expect those who have never been to university and whose children have no aspiration or no capacity to go to a university, to feel happy about paying ever higher taxes in order to finance the aspirations of those who do."
Well , I am sad to say that ; As one who has on ocassions meandered through these hallowed halls of learning. I might add on several Continents .
And , as one who has mingled with both the elite , and those asiprants , who are more intellectually challenged by the educational benchmarks. I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Mr Howard.
I object to paying higher taxes for this purpose.
Tom Collins
re: Cabinet capers in the Dark Tower
Des Moore is no friend of mine. I made my views on him known during the State election when I described him as a hired hand for the Liberal Party.
So I was pretty disappointed to hear he had darkened the halls of NSW Treasury.
Rest assured his visit was as a guest of some group of academic economists who are in no way associated with the State Government.
That NSW public servants would be foolish enough to waste a lunchtime listening to him is a cause for concern. One would have hoped they might have shown better taste.
Michael Egan
Treasurer
by Peter Lewis
How will the Federal Government's decision to de-fund WEL impact on the organisation?
It will have a fairly serious impact, in that we have a national office at the moment and the de-funding will mean that the national office will have to close. It just can't operate.
WEL is, of course, a community organisation and relies on the voluntary work of its members, so that the funding that we've had is important for the national office. Now taking that away means that the national office closes and we lose that national voice.
How will that affect the actual activities that WEL carries out? What won't be occurring any more?
The coordination role is quite an important role . Because Canberra is where most of the national issues are fought out, having an there and having someone coordinate the different approaches from the States and to be there to actually lobby politicians, which is what the Women's Electoral Lobby is about. That severely curtails our role in pressuring any sort of Government or Opposition politicians.
What have been the big wins for WEL in the last few years? What has it done to justify the funding?
I think we have been a source of critical analysis to all sorts of policies that both the Government and Opposition have produced. WEL has made a lot of submissions into public inquiries, with comments on things like the GST; like the funding of child care; and instituting the industrial relations changes that are proposed at the moment. So, we have been involved in putting women's voices into the public policy debate.
The Federal Government says that one of its reasons for targeting to your organisations is that it wants to hear more representative voices of women. How do you respond to that, particularly in light of the choice of the bodies they are funding?
I think it's unfortunate that the Government policy seems to be one that leads to division amongst women's groups, particularly in singling out certain groups that may not be as critical and may favour the government line more than the other organisations. Whilst certainly there is a role for different organisations, the way that the funding grant has managed to cause some sort of division within the women's groups. Certainly a main feature of political life is "divide and rule" and it would appear to me that this is one way of dividing the women's groups and feminist groups.
The outgoing head of the Office for the Status of Women, Pru Goward, recently criticised WEL on the grounds that it was set up as an organisation to increase women's representation in parliament and in her mind it had ceased fulfilling that role and instead had become more a political organisation. What's your response to those sort of criticisms?
I of course wasn't around when they first set up WEL. But I think to say that it's only there to put women into parliament is probably an incorrect view of WEL and its operation today. I think that WEL certainly sees itself as playing some sort of role of being a grass roots movement which has some sort of analysis base. Certainly to begin with one of the ideas was to have women enter parliament, but organisations change and their directions change, and while that may be one issue that WEL assumes, there are all sorts of other ways that WEL operates as well. So to say that - you know, to measure them on Pru Goward's standard of "it has failed to put women into parliament", I think she misunderstands the organisation.
How representative is WEL?
WEL is representative of quite a significant section of the Australian community. There are older members; there are younger members in the young WEL organisation. Members come from all sorts of different walks of life. When I attend meetings there are elderly women;migrant women; business women. There are union officials; some union members. There are teachers. There are people from the legal profession. And there are also women who work in factories. So, it's a fairly representative organisation. We certainly have membership from migrant women as well. So it's a fairly representative organisation of Australian women.
Would you say that the organisation as it stands is under threat because of these funding cuts?
I think that certainly the organisational ability is under threat, and their ability to be able to access politicians in Canberra would be under threat because of this de-funding.
How does that impact on the lives of normal women?
Well, I think because WEL has provided a voice of not only opposition, but of support of particular policies on behalf of Australian women, that by taking that voice away, it's just another example of silencing. And this government seems to be quite good at it. Silencing opposition and de-funding organisations that don't take their particular line.
There is one other area I wanted to look at with you, which is a recent book, "Labor Without Class",that had some fairly tough criticisms of the women's lobby - particularly in the last days of Keating years and particularly related to universal child care. How did your organisation respond to those criticisms?
The organisation, I don't think, had much of a response to that position taken by Michael Thompson because basically while we don't agree with him, his views are.basically irrelevant. Personally I can't understand his arguments on child care. I can't work out what his perception is of workers and the workforce, or of women in our society - the only way people can imporve their social and economic position and achieve equality in the society is by working. Now, to say to workers "You can't work because you must stay home and look after your children, that child care shouldn't be available to the middle classes - I think is a strange picture of the workforce in general.
I don't have children myself, but when I think about my background, my mother was a factory worker. Now, she had to look after four children. If she had child care available to her, it would have made our lives much easier. So, for him to argue that child care is middle class welfare is a very strange argument.
What about the issue of non-means testing? Where is the justification there?
I think that if we are looking for some sort of notion of social and economic equality in society. Child care must be cheap and accessible.The universal provision of child care is important. After all children, whilst they are their parents' responsibility, they are the responsibility of the whole of society, rather than just one parent or two parents. So I think it's a bit like the health care or education issues. These sorts of things are for the betterment of society and to create greater equality, rather than to say, well all right, certain people pay and others don't.
WEL will be giving evidence at the Senate hearing into the "Second Wave" proposals next week. What message will you be taking?
The message that WEL will be putting forward is that the "Second Wave" will disadvantage women workers. We've argued that the Workplace Relations Act has done so in practice from 1996. We can see that the position of women in the workforce has gone backwards. They've lost rights; they've lost wages. We'll also argue that that's not just something limited particularly to women. Certainly it's specific to every low paid occupation - be they men or women.
The new round of industrial relations legislation takes away further rights. In particular it takes away rights from casual workers, a large proportion of which are women. We also have concerns about greater use of individual agreements and the fact that they won't be open to as much public scrutiny. We are concerned about collective agreements being undermined by individual contracts, and this will have a significant effect on the battle for equal pay that women have fought over the last 30 years. That allowing workers who are doing comparable work to have varying rates of pay - it's always the women who will be paid at the lesser amount. We are also concerned about the proposals to limit right of entry of unions to workplaces. Yet, in the past unions have played an important role in uncovering exploitation - particularly of outworkers. That now to say that a union has to be invited by a member, certainly will mean that certain workplaces won't have any sort of policing or maintaining of standards, particularly the occupational health and safety problems.
We are also concerned at cutting back the role of the Commission. The Commission has played an important role, in particular in flowing through equal pay and maintaining what was a reasonable relativity - not a reasonable but a better relativity than a lot of other international experiences, and by removing that role of the Commission in passing and having a strong award system, will be detrimental for women workers.
Suzanne Hammond is the Women's Electoral Lobby's industrial relations spokesperson and a lecturer in indusrtial relations at UNSW.
Its hard for Australians to get excited about constitutional change and the November referendum.
Why? The answer is that we have been gypped and swindled out of our heritage. It is not just that Australian history has emerged only since the 1960s. Not only that we have no civics lessons in our classrooms. No, the real reason for our apathy is that the most interesting figures, controversies and shortcomings of Australian Federation have been edited out. As a result, we have a story of the birth of the Australian nation that rightly bores most Australians to tears and is dominated by a small number of victors: Henry Parkes, Alfred Deakin, Edmund Barton and Sam Griffith. It is a story of great, bearded white men.
But there is another story which remains to be told. When Andrew Inglis Clark first ran for the Tasmanian parliament, the Launceston Examiner called him "the stranger from Hobart", and he has remained a stranger to us for most of this century.
Clark came to understand the principles of federalism from the captains of the Boston whaling fleet which fished the great southern oceans and regularly came to port at his home town, Hobart.
It was this man who was most responsible for "the idea of the Australian nation". Of the 126 sections of our current Constitution, Clark is directly responsible for 88. Yet there is no suburb named Clark next to the suburbs of Parkes, Deakin, Griffith, Forrest, Kingston and Barton that circle Parliament House in Canberra. But if we had a Thomas Jefferson, it was Clark.
He was a passionate republican, an engineer, founder of the University of Tasmania, designer of Tasmania's Hare-Clark voting system, editor of small, vibrant literary magazines and, above all, a believer in inalienable human rights.
Incredibly, Clark purposefully abstained from voting in the 1989 referendum to enshrine the Constitution that he had worked so hard on. He believed there was still more work to be done.
Perhaps his initial fall from grace came because it was embarrassing to our official historians that a man so central to our Constitution could admit that it was far from perfect.
Clark learned the finer points of federalism from US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
What does it say about the official history of Australia, that until recently we have known little about this seminal founding father? How was Andrew Inglis Clark swindled out of his rightful place in history?
The first reason was Alfred Deakin's myth of the Lucinda.
At the 1891 Constitutional Convention Deakin praised Sam Griffith who, with Charley Kingston, Edmund Barton and others, disappeared up the Hawkesbury on the Queensland government steamer the Lucinda and returned after just a few days with a comprehensive draft constitution that was to become the constitution we know today.
To Deakin and everyone else it appeared that Sam Griffith had performed a miracle - not only was Premier Griffith writing the Constitution over this Easter period, he was cabling instructions up to Brisbane to arrest strike leaders George Taylor and Julian Stuart during the Queensland shearers strike.
The untold story was that over the entire year of 1890, Andrew Inglis Clark had researched an Australian federal constitution, travelling to America, consulting constitutional experts, studying the Canadian and colonial constitutions and working up the comprehensive draft which was given to both Sam Griffith and Charley Kingston in January 1891. It was this document that became the backbone of the Australian Constitution. We know that Griffith made many structural improvements to Clark's Constitution but he actually made some fundamental errors that had to be corrected by Clark at later conventions.
The second reason we don't know about Clark is that the workings of the 1891 convention with its committee-style deliberations, were veiled in secrecy, and added to this, Clark himself had a propensity to stay out of the limelight. It was not until July 1958 that John Reynolds, Barton's biographer, published the original Clark draft constitution. It was only then that we could see how much of Clark's 1890 draft was reflected in the current Constitution.
Clark viewed the heart of the Constitution as a "living forum open to each coming generation to re-interpret." The significance of Clark for us 100 years later is that once we grasp his idea of the Constitution as a living force Australians will become more interested in changing, adapting and debating a moribund, horse-and buggy Constitution.
Professor Peter Botsman is executive director of the Brisbane Institute. His book "The Great Constitutional Swindle" will be published by Pluto Press in November. Peter will discuss his book at Glebe books this Wednesday October 27 at 6pm.
Changing traditional working hours was going to be a win-win situation for employers and employees. Or so we were told, not just by employers but by governments of both persuasions.
However, for many employees it hasn't worked out that way. The flexibility has had to be very much on their side of the ledger, and the result has been a less predictable working life and a disrupted family life.
This is vividly illustrated by the case of Kym Wood, whose employer, Steggles Chickens, wants her to start work at 6.30am instead of 8am.
The dramatic changes to working arrangements reflect the move from an awards system that often prescribed ordinary hours of work for a whole industry, to a system of enterprise agreements where working time could be tailored to the needs of a specific organisation.
This issue has dominated enterprise bargaining since it began in 1991. Nearly 80 per cent of enterprise agreements deal with changing the times people work.
The arrangements cover the number of hours worked each week; increasing the span of ordinary hours each day or each week (so what was paid previously as overtime becomes ordinary time); annualising hours; averaging hours worked over a month,a quarter or a year; and reducing or staggering rest and meal breaks.
Enterprise bargaining has facilitated an expansion in operating hours for many organisations. About 30 per cent of all agreements allow for 12-hour spans of work and, in the wholesale and retail trade, the figure is 43 per cent.
Enterprise agreements have also given management greater discretion about how hours are to be worked.
About one-quarter of all agreements provide such discretion, while in industries like recreation, and wholesale and retail trade, the figures are well over one-third.
To complicate matters, the working week is getting longer for many full-time workers.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1978 about a third of full-time workers worked more than 41 hours a week.
However, by the end of last year more than half of full-time workers worked such hours.
The predictability of hours has also fallen because 25 per cent of the workforce is now employed as casual.
On top of that, only a third of the workforce works standard hours each week.
The Wood case, however, is not so much about how many hours people work but when they work. Traditionally, standard hours for full-time employees were 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday.
But the desire of employers for more flexibility and the reduction or elimination of penalty payments for employees working non-standard hours means fewer full-time workers are working that traditional week.
The proponents of change argue that this is good because workers can work when it best suits them. That may be true for those who work part-time, but the advantages are less obvious for full-time workers.
Overwhelmingly, exactly when full-time employees are at work is determined by their employers, not by the workers.
It is not surprising then that a national employee survey by the Federal Government in 1995 found that nearly 30 per cent of full-time workers were less satisfied with the balance between work and family life than a year ago.
In contrast, 20 per cent of part-time workers were less satisfied with the balance.
What, then, are the often-overlooked consequences to the working time arrangements for full-time workers when changes are made in enterprise agreements?
First, with greater working time flexibility comes less predictability. Yet for many workers the need for predictable work hours outweighs the advantages of flexibility in starting and finishing times.
The Wood case demonstrates problems when hours are changed unilaterally.
It may simply not be possible to change child-care arrangements or school hours to fit the changing hours an employer needs. How many day-care centres have places for children whose parents find they have to work evenings or weekends?
Co-ordinating family activities becomes almost impossible if one or more members of the family cannot be sure what days or hours they will be required to work. Rather than making work more family-friendly, these new arrangements may further isolate people from their families.
Second, non-standard hours of work have wider implications for non-work leisure activities. People may no longer be able to commit to sports or other activities.
Team sports require a group of people who share common free time. No wonder recent ABS data shows voluntary community activities are in serious decline in Australia, although this in part reflects the changes in working time in Australia.
Third, changed working time arrangements have unintended consequences. The increasing popularity of days of 12 or more hours in the service, transport and mining industries brings potential health and safety problems.
Fatigue, mistakes and injuries, stress and ill-health are all dangers when people work longer hours and where their pattern of sleep and their non-working time are changed regularly.
Fourth, it is apparent some full-time employees have little say in when they work.
About two-thirds of all workers in a national survey reported that they had some influence over when they started and finished work. For plant and machine operators and labourers, though, the figure is about one-half, whereas for professionals and clerks it is about three-quarters.
Part of the explanation is the nature of the work, which is scheduled around using equipment or working as part of a work group within blue-collar jobs.
But the bottom line is that those workers who are more skilled are likely to have more choice about when they work.
The changing nature of working time in many organisations in Australia may mean that people are more likely to know when they will see their workmates than their families or friends.
Associate Professor Ron Callus is the director of the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training at the University of Sydney.
This article was first published in Worksite.
by ICTU Online
The ICFTU the world's global trade union, representing 124 million workers in 143 countries is also demanding that General Musharraf personally guarantees that the present phase of military rule will not be taken as an opportunity to further curtail the legitimate rights' of workers and of their representative organisations.
The ICFTU has for years denounced successive Pakistani governments for condoning multiple violations of workers' and other fundamental human rights which, it says "stem from a fundamentally corrupt feudal system which rests on a strategic alliance of employers with bureaucracy, politicians and other privileged sectors of Pakistani society."
In recent times, the ICFTU has in particular condemned the militarisation of the Water and Power Development Authority, where unions rights were suspended earlier this year.
There also been restrictions on the free exercise of trade union rights at major industrial infrastructure projects, including a major building project on the Indus river at Ghazi Barotha.
General Musharraf led an army coup which deposed the elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, seized control from the civilian authorities and took effective, direct control over the country. The army has ruled in Pakistan for 25 years of its 52-year history.
by Rohan Cahill
Author of more than 40 books on economics, history, biography and poetry, Len Fox is one of the few surviving journalists and writers whose work was an integral and crucial part of Australian Left politics and culture prior to, and during World War 2 and the Cold War---people like Rupert Lockwood, Edgar Ross, Bill Wood, George Farwell, Paul Moline.
Fox was born in 1905 and grew up against the backdrop of his family's Jewish and Irish-Scottish-North English origins in Melbourne's Eastern suburbs. Educated in private schools and at Melbourne University, he graduated in science, and with a Diploma of Education worked as a private school teacher.
A developing awareness in the late 1920s and early 1930s that the world was deeply troubled and that modern life posed significant moral and ethical questions, led Fox to an interest in what is now termed 'progressive' education.
The key to creating a better world was through child centred schooling, and education that explored notions of individuality, creativity, communality, and freedom, and which took account of modern psychological theory.
With a view to perhaps teaching at a progressive school, Fox went to England in 1933 to learn from leading progressive practitioners like Dora Russell and A. S. Neill. However the extremes of the Depression, significant events like the Hunger Marches, a visit to Nazi Germany, and exposure to socialist thought, politicised the burgeoning educationist.
Returning to Melbourne in 1934 Fox became active in the national consciousness raising Movement Against War and Fascism, and soon became Secretary of its Victorian Branch. He joined the Communist Party (CPA) the following year. For the rest of his life Fox earned his living on the Left, increasingly as an intellectual and writer.
When Australians mobilised in support of the Spanish Republic in its fight against Fascism, Fox was active on the Victorian Spanish Relief Committee. Here he was influenced by the broad cultural approach of the Committee president, well-known writer Nettie Palmer.
In 1940 Fox transferred to Sydney, and journalism. The war years were spent on the lively four page Leftist weekly Progress. With a circulation of 20,000 Progress was one of the few legal sources of Left information and perspective in heavily censored times. The paper folded in 1946.
During the early 1950s Fox edited the four page weekly magazine section of the
communist newspaper Tribune, before joining editor Edgar Ross on Common Cause, weekly newspaper of the Miners' Federation. Following the retirement of Ross, Fox edited the paper until his own retirement in 1970.
There was a two year break, in 1956-1957, when Fox and his wife, the playwright Mona Brand, worked in North Vietnam helping the government with the English language which had assumed political importance as the language of the International Commission supervising the divided country's scheduled 1956 elections.
Aside from journalism, Fox was a widely read pamphleteer during the late 1930s and 1940s on political, economic and historical matters. His pamphlets were between 4000 and 9000 words in length, and based on extensive research; aimed at both working and middle class audiences, the language was accessible, the intention tended to be educational rather than agitational, the style dogma and jargon free.
Fox was also part of a cultural minority in the 1940s and 1950s which argued that Australia had a national culture, and directed significant energies to identifying and promoting this. He did important research and writing leading to the recognition and honouring of the Eureka Flag.
In the face of dominant cultural cringe attitudes, and academic, media and political hostilities, people like Fox, Katharine Susannah Prichard, Brian Fitzpatrick, Stephen Murray-Smith, Helen Palmer, Ian Turner, Russel Ward, did much of the spade work leading to the post 1960s recognition of, and interest in, Australian culture.
As a communist Fox identified with broad Left forces. Although he remained in the party until 1970, he was variously at odds with leaderships that favoured doctrinaire narrowness.
During the 1960s and 1970s Fox and Brand were active in a number of committees for Aboriginal Advancement whose campaigning led to major progressive changes in Australian legislation and public opinion.
The bulk of Fox's literary output has taken place since 1970, reflecting a wide range of interests, from the old windmills of colonial Sydney through to the impact of multinationals on the Australian economy. Two autobiographical works, Broad Left, Narrow Left (1982) and Australians on the Left (1996), are increasingly being drawn upon by historical researchers.
Looking back at his life on the Left, the old writer stresses the value of a broad and tolerant approach in personal life and politics, and a wide interest in cultural matters. In his recent writing, he has stressed the need for broad Left alliances (as was achieved in South Africa) for democracy, internationalism and world peace--with the importance for Australians of Aboriginal Reconciliation and friendship with the Asian peoples.
by The Chaser
"We're in favour a republic, sure, but we're voting against this referendum because it doesn't make exactly the changes we want" said Mr Phil Cleary, the former Independent MP for Wills, "and now we're realising that's always going to be the case. Take the Ralph Report - I think corporate tax rates should be reduced by 15%, so there's no way I'd vote for a stupid 10% cut".
A spokesdolphin for the Green Party said it was pushing for an altogether different system of executive rule. "We want Australia to have a beautiful garden hedge as President. Under the proposed system, there is no way a hedge would be chosen by a two-thirds majority of Parliament, even if you had a whole load of gardeners making recommendations. Our parliamentarians are generally far too sensible. However, under a direct elect system, we believe that a hedge would at least have a fighting chance."
Mr Peter Reith, the Federal Workplace Relations Minister and a prominent direct electionist also supports the plan to vote "No" forever. "I've built a career on negative campaigning," said Mr Reith. "Now what I really want is
to become Prime Minister, and I certainly won't be saying 'yes' to anyone else." Reith is intending to run a grass-roots campaign modelled on Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's 1986 push for Canberra under the slogan "No for PM".
These views are also shared by former Independent MP Ted Mack. "I've always said that the current republican model was undemocratic, but the other day I realised that the whole democratic system is undemocratic," said the maverick politician. "People used to ask me what I thought about
things, and why should that change just because I'm no longer in Parliament? I'm voting 'no' until we have a political system that reflects the will of the people - or at least this person".
Meanwhile, NSW Liberal leader Kerry Chikarovski has endorsed the plan and has offered to put her prodigiously negative influence to work for the cause. As expected, the "No" forces have been quick to reject the offer.
by Neal Towart
The Future of Work and Family by Don Edgar
The current debate about work-family relationships has been diverted into concerns about quality of life, workplace stress and the rights of single employees. It needs to be brought back to a focus on the changing nature of family life, the place of women in the new economy, the needs of children and the future of an ageing population. As well, we have lost sight of the need for a partnership between government service support and the limited capacity of workplaces as such to cater for the increasing diversity of family life.
(Australian Bulletin of Labour; vol. 25, no. 3, September 1999)
Where Does Australia Fit in Internationally with Work and Family Issues? by Graeme Russell and Juliet Bourke
Focuses on international trends in work and family issues, in particular legal responses, adoption of workplace policies and innovative approaches. Australian employees compare favourably with those in other countries in terms of availability, but there is much less evidence of Australian organisations adopting a strategic or systematic approach to implementation.
(Australian Bulletin of Labour; vol. 25, no. 3, September 1999)
Dismissing the Unfair Dismissal Myth by Peter Waring and Alex De Ruyter
Challenges the perception that unfair dismissal laws deter employment growth in small business. Successful passage of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 would result in a loss of rights, namely increased job insecurity, lower productivity, and a narrowing of the meaning of "all" in the government's catchcry of "a fair go all round".
(Australian Bulletin of Labour; vol. 25, no. 3, September 1999)
The Next Working Class: Precarious Employment, Community Unionism and New Organising Strategies in Canada by Carla Lipsig-Mumm�
The erosion of the Australian world of work by state-orchestrated campaigns and laws has much in common with developments elsewhere.
� The spread of precarious employment, the intensification of capital mobility and the actions of governments have combined to weaken union roles in the workplace
� Mass recruitment of the precariously employed is essential
� Union practices and structures will need to be altered to deal with the new workplace
� Canadian experience shows that recruitment and organising need to be linked to community unionism
� Capital is mobile and international. Labour needs to create international links and strategies to deal with the wider world of work
(Just Policy; no. 16, September 1999)
Good Jobs, Strong Communities
The importance of community links and organising strategies are highlighted by the AFL-CIO. Also the Union Cities campaign is discussed, with the revival of city and regional labor councils. Progress of their working families program is reported. Union community funds linking unions with community organisations, education and training for union activists at the George Meany Center and working women campaigns are some of the features of the AFL-CIO strategies, which seem to have at least stabilised union membership.
(America@work; October 1999)
Teamwork in Focus
Betty Arsovska provides a profile of teamwork clauses found in enterprise agreements. The use of teamwork clauses in enterprise agreements has grown from 7.3% of agreements in 1991-2 to 22.8% in 1998. A statistical breakdown by industry and types of clause is provided, as well as examples from local government and steel manufacturing. The advantages of a team based in the workplace are discussed by Anthony Powter.
(Australian Enterprise Bargaining Update; newsletter no. 28, 20 September 1999
Dismissal: breaching duty of trust and the worth of Deeds of Release
An employer's unilateral variation of an employee's conditions of employment and then dismissal of the employee for failing to comply have lead to an order for the employer to pay the maximum statutory amount in compensation, together with common law damages for pain, shock and humiliation. The Federal Court has made the ruling under s170CK(2)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act. Emmerson v Housing Industry Association Ltd. F Ct (Ryan JR) 27 April 1999
Deeds of release are a strategy used by some employer's to remove the possibility of legal action by dismissed employees and which usually state that the employee will make no further claims against an employer in relation to termination. A recent ruling by the AIRC shows that are not such guarantee if the dismissal is found to have been carried out in a harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner.
Le Good v Stork Electrical Pty Ltd (1999) 45 AILR 4-047); Stork Electrical Pty Ltd v Le Good, AIRC, Dec 747/99 M Print R6813, 12/7/99.
(Recruitment and Termination Update; newsletter 21, 20 August 1999)
Employee or Contractor? Tax Office Tries Again
The rapid growth of independent contractors as a substitute for employees has lead to many disputes over the status of workers. Situations where employees resign from organisations but then perform the same or similar work for it as a contractor are becoming more frequent.
The introduction of the GST is likely to create further controversy and test cases as only "enterprises" are able to register with the Tax office for GST purposes.
A Tax Office ruling of 8 September 1999 (Taxation Ruling No TR 1999/13) addressed the issue and consolidated previous rulings and determinations.
In particular the ruling considers:
� Who is an "employee"?
� Payments under contracts that are wholly or principally for labour
An independent contractor is seen as someone who contracts "for services" (achieve a result working in their own business); while an employee is in a contract "of service" (supply of labour to achieve a result and work in the service of an employer).
The ruling lists key indicators in distinguishing between the two:
� The control test
� Whether the substance of the contract is to achieve a specified result
� Whether the service provider has the power to delegate
� Whether the worker bears any risk of the costs arising out of injury or defect in carrying out the work
Conditions of employment such as leave, superannuation and other award benefits are also relevant, along with use of materials (whether provided by employer).
(Work Alert; no. 16/1999, 7 October 1999)
by Nick Wailes
Reading this book placed me in a very uncomfortable position. On the one hand, the title screamed "beware". It is my experience that books that have the word "globalization" in the title should be avoided at all costs. As one author recently proclaimed, globalization is "a multifaceted phenomenon and difficult to summarise". Which of course is a nice way of saying, "I don't know what the hell it is, but it can explain everything bad that happens to us and it sells books to boot". So it was with a great deal of trepidation that I approached this book subtitled, 'Australia and the Politics of Globalization'. The end result is that I find myself having to do something which does not come easily and which may never be repeated - say nice things about a book with the words globalization and Australia on the cover. What follows may seem a little clumsy - praise is not a natural form for me - but here goes!
This is a terrific book and I would recommend it to just about anybody wanting to understand how changes in the international economy are affecting Australia, how Australia has chosen to react to these changes and the alternatives that are available to the current dismal state of affairs. Roughly speaking, the first few chapters talk about what globalization is and what it isn�t; the next few talk about Australia�s policy reaction to the perceived threat of globalization and the consequences of this policy reaction; and the last part of the book examines the alternatives that are available. The first two sections are excellent. I am a bit "iffy" about the third, but compared to Mark Latham's recent Civilising Global Capital, the policy prescription is commendable. I will deal with each section in turn.
I think what makes this book so good is the liberal use of the question mark in the titles to chapters and sections. This is illustrated well in Chapter three - 'Transforming the Global Economy? Trade, Capital and Power in the Late Twentieth Century'. In the first part of the book, Wiseman's aim is to actually put some edges on the "multifaceted phenomenon" and provide an accessible picture of what has actually happened in the world economy and how this impacts of Australia. He makes two very worthwhile points: one, that the underlying forces driving economic activity haven't basically changed; and two, that the way in which these forces are structured, and therefore the way they could potentially impact on a country like Australia, has changed in important ways. This is a much better approach to globalization than the standard view which is that a bolt of lightning from out of the blue has produced some mutant monster (Globalzilla) and that we are helpless before it.
In the second part of the book, Wiseman shows that the reaction of Australian policy makers has been by and large to treat the challenges of globalization as insurmountable and to systematically abrogate responsibility for providing decent social outcomes. Wiseman makes a distinction between the soft love (Labor) and the hard love (Liberal) versions of this abrogation, but correctly notes that the overall effects have been pretty much the same. In a good straightforward overview (Chapters 4 and 5), he summarises the major changes in economic and social policy, explains how they are connected to the desire to increase 'national competitiveness' and maps their perverse and disastrous consequences.
The overwhelming picture you get is that these policies have been singularly unsuccessful in all but one regard. They have helped accelerate and exacerbate the growth of inequality, thereby helping to systematically disenfranchise a large percentage of the population. This is certainly the Australia that I live in and it is refreshing, but no less lamentable, to see it accurately depicted in a book about Australian �politics�. Furthermore, Wiseman does not depict the inequality as the unavoidable aftermath of the ravages of Globalzilla, for which no one is to blame, but rather treats it as the obvious consequences of policies deliberately chosen by policy makers who found it �all too difficult to cope with�. For this he is to be congratulated.
In the last part of the book, Wiseman bravely confronts the handmaiden of Globalzilla, TINA (Thatcher�s famous retort - �there is no alternative�), which is largely responsible for the increasingly unequal society in which we live. He sets himself the task of outlining what the alternatives are and how they are to be achieved. The charitable amongst you will find in the last few chapters some interesting ideas which could be developed into a useful program. All I can really find is a plea for action and a call to arms, which is not really an fully fleshed out alternative to my way of thinking. Much of this section reminds me of reading a self help book on self discovery - enough said.
Nevertheless, if you compare the alternatives laid out in this book with those spelt out by Latham, the contrast couldn't be more stark. Wiseman calls for grass roots political action and mobilisation across a range of social, environmental and political issues. Latham calls for further abandonment of the social democratic legacy to accommodate and tame Globalzilla. The differences between the two reflect the differences in their understandings of how we got where we are now- Latham�s is wrong, Wiseman�s promising.
Let me conclude by (again) noting the importance of the question mark in 'Global Nation?' This book provides the basis on which to question the inevitability of the current state of affairs in Australia. I hope that it is widely read and discussed.
John Wiseman, Global Nation? Australia and Politics of Globalization, Cambridge University Press, 1998. $24.95.
This review first appearwed in Worksite
It is an intellectually dishonest argument to say that because someone favours a younger person for a position they are opposed to older people.
My critics can't have it both ways. It can't be argued on the one hand that a woman is the preferred person for a position because it will have a positive effect on our image - an argument I support - and then refuse outright to accept that a younger woman may have an even more positive effect.
The critical question of the right person to be the public face of the ACTU is not about any individual's age or ability, but their strategic value in projecting the movement to its key target group which I believe is younger workers.
The question is the target group. That's what we should be arguing about.
There is nothing shallow about marketing the movement - anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Why has the union movement spent enormous amounts of research in recent years to understand our target markets ? Demography is an issue, to deny this is to be blind to the issues the movement is facing, in fact it borders on gross irresponsibility.
Baby boomers are overwhelmingly represented in senior positions in the labour movement - but there are a paucity of younger faces in key leadership positions.
This is despite the fact that there is an abundance of young talent around the movement at the moment - many of whom are leaving because the structures make it difficult for them to have an impact on the direction of the movement. We have an outmoded seniority mentality that undermines the need to project a younger image.
The ACTU needs to balance experience and youthful dynamism, with the ACTU Presidency presenting an ideal opportunity to dramatically signal to the community that unions are modernising.
What people don't understand is that the ACTU Presidency is largely a public face - the Secretary is the key position, but the President is the movement in a public sense.
One of the President's key jobs is to project the image the union movement wants - but it seems we are pursuing the path of least resistance in filling it, rather than having a sensible discussion about what image we want to have as our public face. "There are no alternatives available", I have been told, and that is probably right if you are narrowly defining what you look for and where you look.
What is the rush to announce a replacement for Jennie ? We have nine months to canvass all of the options.
Jennie George's election to the Presidency was a strategically successful move, it helped breakdown the image of a male dominated union movement. The decision on who replaces Jennie George should be treated with the same strategic importance.
All the union surveys show that the union movement has an aging membership and if young workers are not attracted, membership levels will continue to fall.
In a time of crisis, business as usual is not good enough - we need to be thinking outside the square.
There is an important role for more experienced officials, especially women. That is why I am promoting Nurse's Association Secretary, Sam Moait, as the Labor Council's first female President.
What has annoyed me most about the response is the way some people have dismissed the positive effect that a younger person could bring to the movement.
While I don't agree with Natasha Stott-Despoja's politics, for the Democrats she has been an enormous asset. It would be churlish for people to argue anything different. She has portrayed a youthful, intelligent image that many young people relate to.
I find it alarming to hear some people dismissing my off-hand reference to a Natasha Stott-Despoja-type person as my desire to have a 'barbie doll' image for the labour movement. I find that totally offensive and dismissive of younger women.
Yes I am 43 and, yes I agree that I would not be an ideal candidate for the ACTU Presidency. In fact, I don't think any male my age should be considered. We are too old for this job at this time.
In the tradition of collective action Workers Online is opening the Olympic ticket trading club.
Each week at the bottom of the sports page we'll offer readers the opportunity to swap tickets for one meaningless sport, with tickets to another.
While scalping is definitely out; bartering is encouraged, with ticket holders to name their in kind price.
First off the block is Superman, Mark Lennon.Mark was lucky enough to score two tickets to the Equestrian dressage on sept 20 and a fun-filled day at the graeco-Roman wrestling on the 24th.
Mark would be happy to accept any trade - or a significant number of car washes or babysits.
Participants in a recent Seminar focussing on Work and Family heard from a number of speakers how many workers and in particular women feel totally swamped by the requirements of work and family life.
The term fast capitalism is an emerging description of the current social and economic environment workers find themselves in. Employers are demanding total committment from their workers because they argue this is necessary to maintain their competitive edge.This has meant a declining quality of life for many people including increased levels of stress, reduced times spent with friends and families and overall disatisfaction with their lives.
The Seminar was organised by the NSW Department of Industrial Relations and the NSW Family Taskforce as part of their ongoing consultations over developing improved distribution of family friendly policies across all workplaces.
Speakers at the Seminar included Gillian Whitehouse from Queensland University, Professor Graeme Russell from Macquarie Univerity , Helen Glezner from the Swinbourne Institue of Technology and Jane Wagner from the newly established NSW Office Of Childcare.
Key concerns involved the difficulties women faced in accomodating work and family needs.At the top end of the social class families are engaging domestic help with household needs.Private schools are now offering to the"modern family" new child minding services that include day boarding and pre school centres.In effect a one stop shop for their child minding/schooling needs.
Increasingly double income couples are opting for a childless lifestyle which is the only way many see as the way to accomodate their professional aspirations while maintaining a quality lifestyle.
While family friendly policys exist in many of our large flagship companies many parents dont take advantage of them becauses the workplace culture is opposed to it.Thus the male paradigm of work continues to prevail.
At the other end of the social spectrum women are finding it harder to match their needs of childcare and the requirements of work.This is particularly so given the huge increase in casual work coupled with the federal governemnts defunding of childcare.
While there are no easy answeres to any of these problems participants in the seminar canvassed possible solutions such as improved regulatory regimes for part time and casual workers ,test cases in areas of most concern ie casuals and hours of work, and better education of both workers and employers of their employment entitlements particularly in the small business area..
Overall women needed to remobilise to bring about a broader discusion in the community on these issues.
So what was he on about? Well, his argument was constructed around the questions of why now? and why this model?
These are the rhetorical tools that the Monarchists have constructed their case so cynically around - a combination of opportunism and dishonesty to cloak the neo-Conservatives they are into the purveyors of national commonsense.
Piers takes swipes at all his usual suspects: Keating, Whitlam, the 'faux Irish' and, of course, Malcolm Turnbull. It's vintage Ack-ing as he rails against the "rather immature clique of baby-boomer elitists which believe that national identity can only be forged through conflict and apparently still pines for the whiff of 60s patchouli-scented radicalism.
He concludes in an enigmatic fashion - suggesting that a better model could win his vote next time, with an "acceptable and less divisive model"
Like the Monarchist's crass advertising campaign "Vote No to the Politician's Republic", the Piers argument is premised on the notion that as soon as this referendum gets knocked over, preparations will begin for the real thing.
Which is exactly? A direct election to create a US-style presidency and a fundamental change in our political system?- I could really see Piers', Howard and the good ol' boys and girls at ACM giving that one the thumbs up!
But back to Piers' initial questions: why now? and why this model?
Why now? Anyone with any sense of history and symbolism would have to concede that the centenary of Federation is an appropriate time to question our current constitutional arrangements.
While there are valid criticisms that this has been of limited scope, the basic notion of changing ultimate legal power from a hereditary line of royalty from another country to an Australian is an important symbolic change.
This is where Piers and his like get lost - they're not really into symbols; they like their concepts concrete like dole-bludgers and lazy unionists.
Despite their protests, symbols are important in an age where countries compete for investment and markets in a global market. A country portrayed as confident and forward looking is ideally placed to be at the centre of these changes; one that clings to the past can easily be left behind.
This has been recognised by many of the contemporary musicians, who are at the cutting edge of this international market. They support the republic because they recognise a stronger sense of place adds value to their own product. That's why many of them are singing "Yes, It's Time".
Piers dismissal of the importance of this symbolism as being less important than the fate of the South Sydney rugby league team, betrays nothing but his own hollow heart.
The second question: why this model? is a disingenuous one for one of the PM's men to ask. The model was a product of the cumbersome Constitutional Convention process that Howard loaded with appointed Monarchists and direct electionists.
The compromise deal they struck had a number of subtlety's that have been ignored in the debate - notably Jason Li's public consultation model. More importantly ConCon's model was one of ongoing Constitutional change, with the minimalist Republic a starting point for a broader examination of government.
Direct electionists opposing the Republic seem to have ignored this; being more interested in wiping the smirks off the ARM's admittedly smug faces than securing an outcome that promotes their own objectives.
As always Piers has missed the real story. Which is why this referendum that is meant to be about whether Australia becomes a Republic has turned into a lawyer's debate about what sort of Republic we want. It was a daring move by a Prime Minister dedicated to securing the British Crown as head of state.
And by running his tired and divisive line, Piers' has played right into the PM's hands.
P.S. One of the bright note's of the campaign has been the emergence of the insufferable Sophie Panopolous as a public figure for the Monarchist cause. Should the Liberals ever tire of Bronwyn Bishop, they need look no further.
© 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/36/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 |