In just his second week in the job, Director-General Juan Somavia told the FIET World Congress that he would cut the number of International Labour Organisation programs from 39 to just four.
He said the changes needed to made to the ILO to make it a more effective voice in the international debate about globalisation.
Somavia said his priority was to replace the myriad ILO programs with clear strategies for:
- fundamental workers rights
- the creation of employment
- social security
- and social dialogue.
Running across these four streams would be a commitment to development issues and gender issues.
The Chilean attorney, speaking from Geneva via a television hook-up, said that the creation of decent work should become the international focus for labour.
"After human rights, every society wants decent work," he said. "We need to place a social floor below the global economy."
Somavia said the immediate challenge for the international community was to give meaning to ILO Conventions 186 and 189 which deal with freedom of association, the right to organise and bargain collectively, the abolition of forced labour and child labour and the elimination of discrimination in employment.
"This will be the test case of where liberalisation is going," he said.
Embracing the notion of sectoral unions and larger bodies like the proposed UNI, Somavia said international organisations and sectional bodies had complementary roles to play.
"The ILO is your house -- it is the only international member of the UN where you have a seat at the table," he said.
Addressing this week's FIET World Congress, Kelty said unions would increasingly act across national borders to match the power of global capital.
This would transform bodies like the ILO from protectors of developing nations to major players in the economy of the new millennium.
"For a great part of the last generation of Australian union leaders, we believed that the ILO was an organisation that gave protection to those developing countries which needed it," Kelty said.
"We understood and appreciated that that was its role and we contributed to that role as best we could. But we never did think that we too could be totally dependent upon the ILO and the United Nations.
We have now learnt that no nation, no matter how well organised, no matter how strong their wages and working conditions are can be isolated from the rest of the world and isolated from other unions."
Kelty said the notion of an international minimum wage would become a reality because unions had the capacity to undercut colleagues abroad in light of the mobility of global capital
"To organise a company in this country without understanding how it operates in other parts of the world is naive and simple and wrong."
And he said the Internet would be an increasingly important tool in linking up union members around the world.
"I look forward to the time where every union member in the world is connected by internet and that we have a community of understanding," he said.
Earlier, Kelty addressed the conference on the issue of organising and recruitment, laying out what he thought Australian unions were doing well and where he thought they could do better:
Here's a summary of his address:
* What has worked well:
- the Organising Works program; the ACTU's Organising Unit; trade union training;the openness of senior union leadership to cultural change
* Where we are waiting to see the benefits:
- the central provision of services like Union Shopper; the amalgamation process(which he concedes has had mixed results)
* What has not yet worked:
- linking wages with education and industrial restructuring (the Carmichael plan); attempting to deal co-operatively with employers; countering the myths of unionism; achieving a fundamental cultural change within unions
* The things that are being tested:
- greater delegate involvement; greater use of the Internet; a new services approach
After the speech, Kelty was swamped by local media more interested in when he intended leaving his position at the ACTU.
Kelty fended off questions with one promise: to make any decision through the union structures and not through the media.
FIET (The International Federation of Commercial, Clerical, Professional and Technical Employees) is one of four bodies who would merge to form the Union Network International (UNI) in 2000.
The UNI would be the world's largest collective organisation, bringing together all workers in the emerging Information Economy. It would be positioned to be a key voice in the ongoing debate about globalisation.
The other three proposed partners in the merger are the Communications International, the International Graphical Federation and the Media and Entertainment International.
All bodies must ratify the UNI proposal by the end of October; a formal joining would then be planned for next January.
FIET general secretary Phillip Jennings said the UNI would play a role in coordinating the activities of unions representing information workers around the globe.
While the Australian process of trade union amalgamations have met with mixed success as workplaces have fragmented, the argument for large international bodies is more compelling.
With global capital increasingly mobile and diverse, workers' representation can not be constrained by national borders or industry classifications.
For more on the UNI, see the interview with Phillip Jennings in this issue
The rally, to coincide with the FIET World Congress, provided a colourful backdrop for a serious issue - the impact on developing countries of unsustainable debt burdens.
The idea of deferring Third World debt to coincide with the millennium has been gaining support for some time. British PM Tony Blair is one of a line of leaders who have given in-principle support for the proposal.
The theory behind the campaign is that Developing Countries would have a better opportunity to overcome their poverty troubles, if they were not forced to pay millions servicing huge debts to the World Bank representing developed nations.
Delegates from Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Honduras and South Korea addressed the rally, giving a human face to the debt burden their countries face.
Joyce Nombe from Zimbabwe said the money owed to the IMF and other lending institutions would be better spent relieving poverty at home.
Instead, the African nations were forced to cut government services continually to meet debt repayments, only to need foreign aid -- which often leads to further debt -- when the nation slips into crisis.
FIET general secretary Phillip Jennings said this vicious cycle had to stop, to ensure that 1.3 billion people living in poverty had a future.
"The result is that the poor get poorer and millions die from starvation or diseases that can be treated successfully in richer countries," he said.
"More than a billion people could be helped overnight with the removal of the enormous burden on their countries."
The FIET campaign complements an international push for the deferral under the banner Jubilee2000 which calls for the "cancellation of the unpayable debts of the worlds' poorest countries by the year 2000 under a fair and transparent process."
FIET general secretary Phillip Jennings this week wrote to World Bank President James Woolfensohn after Bangladeshi delegates at the FIET World Congress raised the issue.
The delegates informed FIET that a World Bank advisory team in Bangladesh had advised the government that they should take legislative measures to block a union for the finance sector.
In the letter, Jennings seeks confirmation of the advice as well as clarification of the World Bank's commitment to labour standards, including the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Rights.
In a response from the World Bank, Robert Holzmann, director of its Social Protection Unit, said he was unable to verify the specific claims in the short time frame but it "is not standard Bank policy to advise a government to take legislative measures to prevent workers from organising".
On the more general issue, he said "I would like to assure you that the Bank places great emphasis on the importance of good working conditions for workers."
"We recognise the prominence of labour standards in the current debate and we have made this an important issue for consideration internally within the Bank as well as in our external dialogue with stakeholders".
At the centre of the dispute is the UNSW's attempt to push academics onto individual contracts and performance pay in a bid to rein in costs following cuts to education funding by the Howard Government.
Thursday's stoppage was the third in three weeks and was held as dignitaries including the Governor-General gathered to celebrate the university's 50th anniversary.
Members of the National Tertiary Eduction Union and students circled the glass pavilion before turning their backs on the event.
The negotiations at UNSW have national significance because it will set a benchmark for pay rounds scheduled for all universities over the next 12 months.
While Frances concedes "most ordinary workers probably don't have a lot of sympathy for academics", she says their problems reflect those that other workers are also facing.
"We supported the MUA when they tried to push them onto contracts, so we hope working people will support us too."
Addressing the PSA, Mr Carr said the public service's provision of fearless and independent advice was a central component of effective government.
"The role of the public service has always been to tender objective advice to the government of the day," he said.
"The tradition of independent career public servants is integral to the Westminster system of government. It is one that I support"
Mr Carr said the government had shown its commitment to the public service with the creation of 1400 extra permanent employees and the successful completion of pay negotiations last year.
PSA president Maurie O'Sullivan said the Carr Government had played an important role in restoring the public service after it was attacked by successive Coalition governments between 1988 and 1995.
"The sad thing is that for a succession of years from the late 1980s to the mid 1990s, you were made to feel unwanted and value-less," he said.
"In that period there was a very clear and concerted campaign to demoralise the public service and to convince the world that "private is best"."
O'Sullivan contrasted the consultative attitude of the Carr Government with that of its predecessor, which did not meet the PSA once in its time in power.
He said the contrast between the Coalition and Labor had been marked: "we have a relationship which is sometimes a bit undulating, indeed last year, at one time it got quite stormy, reality is that the communication we have with ministers and with senior bureaucrats does exist.
"The relationship with the previous two state governments was zilch. It was irretrievable from day one."
"With the previous government the relationship was irretrievable from Day One."
While the PSA is not affiliated to any political party, O'Sullivan said he was strongly endorsing a vote for Labor on March 27.
The fast food giant today pleaded guilty to breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the 1996 death of Michael Johnston who was electrocuted while cleaning kitchen equipment in McDonalds' Wollongong franchise.
According to facts tendered to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, the deceased worker had been in the job just two weeks and, while he had received training in the cleaning procedure, there was no instructions on cutting off the power to the grill before it was cleaned.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa said the fatality was a tragic illustration of the need for safe working procedures, proper maintenance of equipment and detailed safety training for new workers.
"While the employer had taken steps to provide general training for the staff, it appears that the training for the kitchen equipment that killed the young worker was not adequate, " Mr Costa said.
"Safety needs to be elevated to the forefront of every worker's mind, so that it goes hand in hand with all other employment practices."
Mr Costa said the Labor Council was developing a training kit for secondary students, in cooperation with the WorkCover Authority.
The "Staying Alive" program would be piloted in selected schools this year, with plans to place it on the curriculum for all students in 2000.
"These initiatives are important, but they do not detract from the responsibility of management in ensuring that new workers receive basic levels of training," Mr Costa said.
"This is an issue of growing concern, particularly in the services sector where many workers are not protected by a trade union."
LHMU Branch Secretary Chris Raper said Menzies had now agreed that there will be no forced cuts in hours.
"Menzies backed off after members strongly rejected the cut to hours," Chris said.
"At well attending union meeting in Menzies three zones around NSW, the vote was unanimous to strike if the cuts went ahead."
Government Support
The NSW State Government also intervened to support the cleaners against Menzies cuts.
This was an important factor in convincing Menzies to withdraw the proposed changes.
Other features of the settlement with Menzies include:
� The company will consult with cleaners and the Union about any proposed changes in the future
� When cleaners are absent, Menzies must employ other cleaners to maintain site hours.
Must cover absences
Raper said LHMU members should insist that Menzies bring in relief cleaners when regular staff are absent.
"This is a good outcome for LHMU members," he said. "It shows that when cleaners stand up for themselves in a well-organised campaign, we can protect conditions."
Menzies was one of three companies to win contracts with the State Government in the recent tender. The contracts run for five years from January, 1999.
Of the eight zones tendered out, Menzies won three, Tempo won four and Broadlex got one zone.
Both Tempo and Broadlex have agreed to no forced cuts to hours.
The Union was able to ensure cleaners' interests were taken into account during the tender process.
"One of the good things about the current NSW Government," Chris Raper said, "is that they listen to the viewpoint of the LHMU and cleaners."
He said ongoing Union action had protected important conditions since the 1994 privatisation of the Government Cleaning Service by the previous Coalition Government.
"We have been able to ensure long service leave is rolled over and a sick leave safety net is provided," Raper said.
"Before the recent tender round, we expressed our concern to the NSW Government that cleaners' hours needed to be maintained.
"We know what it takes"
Roy Richards believes cleaning contractors should consult their workers before trying to cut hours.
"We're the ones who know what it takes to keep a site clean", said Roy, who works for Menzies at Liverpool Street courthouse in central Sydney.
Roy was shocked when Menzies proposed a 30% cut to hours. "There's no way we could keep this place properly clean if our hours were cut," he said.
"And a lot of cleaners need all the hours they can get, just to pay the bills."
Roy said more cleaners need to join the Union if conditions are to be protected. "Without the Union, we'd be sitting ducks."
Salut et fraternite! It was good to see Comrade Patmore's piece on early unionism in Australia. Readers might be interested to know of considerable industrial activity among soldiers- especially the NSW Corps- and sailors in the pre-1850 period. I also have discovered strikes by troops and convict miners in Newcastle before 1810. There is also a taxation populaire on Norfolk Island inthe early 1790s, led I am delighted to say by a marine called Parsons. Plenty more history from below to discover. George Parsons
Its time that the labour movement looked at its organisation! Capital has unde gone yet another revolution and left us behind. We need and Industrlla Union organised from the bottom up which every one can join.One with a sliding scale fee structure as some unions use already. The trade-union structure is out-dated and sets worker against worker. Many a union organiser and official have told me they have more trouble from rival unions than they have from the boss! For your average worker this is disconcerting. Also on occasion we seem to have more problems with Trades Hall appearing to be in bed with industry employers than with us. solidarity Uri Ben-Avraham ANF
by Peter Lewis
What was the catalyst for pursuing the amalgamation of what are effectively the four main information internationals?
The principle catalyst has been the way the world is changing around us and the recognition that the various industries that we represent individually were not so much on a collision course, but were coming closer together. There's a number of phenomenan at play: the convergence of technology which has been achieved through the digitalisation of information technology; the emergence of new corporations and new businesses which are driven by this technology; and the process of privatisation.
Telecoms are privatising around the world and the world of telecommunications and information technology and computing are coming together. At the same time, a number of the key businesses in this field have become multi-media internationals. So we realised as time went by there was more and more sense in us talking together, developing cooperation and then taking the next step and consider merging.
At the same time, the actual nature of the jobs in these industries is also changing; for example, the demarcations between media work and graphical work are blurred. You're effectively going to represent all information workers.
We think the Internet will change everything. The Internet and what that represents, the wired community, will change the way businesses work and change the way people work and it will change the way that unions are going to work. But we want to get there ahead of the curve. These changes are occurring now and we decided we could wait for this revolution to turn full cycle and then do something or do something now. At this stage we don't have any financial crises or membership crashes, so we decided the time to act was when we are in a position of strength.
But when you think about the amount of resources being pumped into the InterNet by capital interests, what hope do unions have to match that?
The thing about the Internet is that it's accessible. We can already get our message to any workplace we wish, provided they are online. The access to the Internet will be open, regardless of your level of development. In a relatively short period of time there will be sufficient satellites in place to cover the entire globe. In the past the technological revolutions have tended to leave out the poorer nations, but they can be included in this revolution. We know from our experience with work on multinationals that we can now get the message to negotiators, full-time officials and shop-floor representatives as fast as it comes in. You develop a community of interest and the speed of reaction you have and the input you can get back in this community is equally rapid. We've experimented with a couple of discussion forums, the banking unions and our youth wing and we were inundated with hundreds of messages, lots of suggestions and lots of idea. The Internet has also ended the top-down, preferential version of communications and replaced it with something that is more open and more immediate.
What about the distribution issues? It's fine for developed countries to embrace the InterNet, but what about Africa and Asia?
We've started a project in Africa. Where in the past we asked our unions for money to build a house, or purchase a fax machine or fund an education program, we've now started an IT project where we're supplying the computers and the e-mail facilities. Whereas it would have taken a month to get a message to parts of West Africa, I can get a message to them instantly. All of a sudden you have a building that looks like its had it, but if you open the doors and look inside, they have the technology there. The problem is that this has to be sustained.
At the same time though, the accepted wisdom is that the Internet generation is far more individual, less collective. What messages do unions need to be sending out to capture these people?
I think they have to build that bridge about the lonely Internet user at home in the office and what a collective organisation can do for them. We started our work on information technology more than a decade ago and were told at the time it would be impossible to organise people in the IT providers, the software people. But this is a community that is used to dealing with the technology, that has ready communication between them and we use this medium to get the message out to them that union activity is increasing. We have this community of people who are working in a very untraditional way but they're getting the union message.
What are the good news stories of 21st Century unionism that you put up when people ask you?
The best are where we have future concepts unionism tied to the traditions that we developed during the course of this century. What we are finding in telework is that we now have unions who have negotiated agreements across 30 countries. Now that's the future in terms of where the labour market appears to be going and we're getting in there. Just last week in Italy they've struck an agreement in the area of e-commerce, where all the conditions of telework are covered by a collective agreement. The initial view was that this was impossible, but it is occurring now.
What role do you see the UNI playing in the future?
It has to be the generator of new ideas. The way unions are working, they are engaging with these changes, but I don't think they're moving as fast as the world around us is changing. We have to respect the democratic process and to have people in elected positions, but what we also have to do is bring groups of workers together who have, until now, been in different places. We have to have more projects work, we need to run more issues and do these things quickly.
The other side to it is that we see the technology as being a critical issue for us and how we are going to use this as a tool for communication with our members and develop communities of interest on certain issues. We have the technology, but we need to use it strategically. We have a project as part of the union called UNITE -- the UNI Technological Environment. We intend to have a network amongst all our offices and affiliates so that we can be an online international. This requires investment, expertise and we want to get to that future first. Often trade unions have tended to wait and not react quickly enough in taking advantage of these new tools. We intend to be part of the new wired community.
And of course, by being part of it you can shape the way it develops. What ideas do you here?
We are forcing change in a way. What we are doing at an international level is without precedent. It's not just a question of scale, it's a question of ambition. By pursuing this process, it's a sign of how at an international level you can drive other processes. And because we are bringing so many unions together, they will have to cooperate nationally, when maybe this wasn't the case in the past. They're going to have to think about how they use the technology if they want to be in the vanguard of this change.
So do you buy the line that we now have the opportunity to build the Internationale?
We've done electronic pickets and we've been accused by the Financial Times during the MAI talks of being network guerillas. If we have a difficulty with a company, we get the message out within minutes. If there's a merger, we get the message out to our members before the company's had a chance to get their media releases out. And it is now the companies who are reacting to us organising electronically. I think this is a tool for building a community of spirit which will now be transmitted to the whole planet; we've never had that capacity before.
What we're doing is positive. There's a very good spirit about the merger. We're a new generation of leaders and a new wave of people who respect what's gone on in the past, but realise we have to speed up. It's not just a question of being acclimatised to a scenario of doom and gloom; you have to try and shape it. I think for a while there was a sagging of morale, that this globalisation and the related political processes would be timeless -- that there would be an infinite period where we couldn't find our way. But we've seen the political climate change in Europe and people are talking more about the things we've been talking about; and lo and behold, we might end up in a situation where trade union orthodoxy on the importance of social protection and the importance of social policy, will be back onto centre stage -- and it's been off it for 20 years.
How important to that is the rise of the social democratic governments in Europe?
Apart from having a fresh wind in your sails, there is a commitment to fairness at work, a commitment to dialogue and a recognition that this is a new political ball game. They realise that the societies that we've created were becoming unsustainable. In the initial stages of monetarism, Thatcherism and Reaganism, we talked about the fact that the trickle-down theory would not work and that the benefits of that economic process would only stay at one level; it wouldn't reach the bottom.
As time has gone by, this is actually what has happened. Now economists and politicians can see these processes are not socially sustainable. Therefore the political pendulum seems to be swinging back the other way. We now get major commentators, who a few years ago were drunk on the idea of opening markets, writing with much more nuance now. People do now talk about the human face of globalisation because the model's been wrecked by what's happened in the Asian region. We're 22 months into a crisis, record unemployment, a business community that can't pay the interest rates that the IMF has imposed and it's recognised that the model has to change.
by Mark Hearn
Integral Energy. A cool jade temple of power poised on a hill above the humble homes of Blacktown in Sydney's west, as if to announce the arrival of the corporate high fliers amid the footy fields and the red roofs.
Up and running by 1996 as one of the largest electricity distribution authorities in New South Wales, Integral Energy powers the lives of over 1.7 million people in Sydney's west and south. A company brochure claims "we have been successful in the private sector amid very tough competition".
Integral staff are currently insisting that the company recognises the commitment they have made to that corporate success. They've been taking rolling industrial action in support of a 15% pay increase - without trade-offs.
As Bill Davidson, a delegate with the Municipal Employees Union says, "We reckon we've given up enough over the last three years. We just want a straight wage increase." Bill believes Integral staff have proven their loyalty - in productivity gains and trade-offs of conditions, while over one thousand jobs were cut as the merger of the old Prospect and Illawarra County Councils took effect.
Everyone's tired of the trade-offs, and the renewed attacks on basic conditions. "The old award security is gone", Administration Officer Cheryl Cherry frowns. As MEU General Secretary Brian Harris observes, "Integral management won't offer long term benefits to its workers - but expects to receive long term benefits from them."
Privatisation
And the changes keep coming. Right now, the mother of all deals looms before the workers at Integral Energy - power privatisation, the apparently logical consequence of the 1996 corporatisation dress rehearsal. A new beginning, NSW Opposition Leader Kerry Chikarovski promises - oh, and a thousand bucks for everyone! She doesn't mention the probability of more job losses. But as MEU delegate Al Liversidge says, the "big worry is job security".
Some of the potential purchasers of the NSW power industry - the six power distributors, like Integral Energy, or the three power generators, like Pacific Power, with its vast Eraring Power Station - may be overseas multinationals who have already invested in Victoria's privatised industry. "They may just run everything out of Victoria", Al says quietly, imagining the impact on jobs in New South Wales.
Bill Davidson is one of the company's old-timers, and enjoys his job, but realises that the days of a life-long career - and easily won pay increases - are over. Many of the old timers have already gone. As one of Bill's workmates says, "We're a liability. They can't afford us." These days, many companies see accumulating staff benefits - superannuation, long-service leave - as costs to be eliminated. It's said that Integral expects staff to stay no more than five years.
Yet Integral Energy may have forgotten that their staff are integral to its performance, and that the company is integral to their lives. As Bill Davidson says, the workers who have survived the changes and passed up the redundancy offers have made a commitment. Bill likes his job, keeping Integral's temple of power running, the air conditioning humming. "Those who are here want to stay."
Ray Markey on the Value of History
History can provide a sharp tool in the hands of the labour movement. Political commentators have frequently referred to the advantages for the ALP in having a reasonably well-defined sense of history to refer to. Former Prime Minister Keating was commonly recognised for his ability to appeal to this in the electorate.
History defines the labour movement and its future. To crudely paraphrase Toynbee: 'if you have no history, you have no future, and if you have no future, you're history'. Or to put this another way, 'you cannot know the direction you're going in unless you know where you've been'.
The labour movement's well-defined sense of history offers its members a sense of belonging, an identifiable culture, as well as important lessons from the past. Through a well-developed literature of the history of labour, the movement's victories and defeats are recorded, to provide a sense of identity through continuity.
Labour history also challenges the conservative historical tradition, which focuses upon great men, wars and diplomacy, and political and business leaders; the victors in social conflict. Instead, labour history claims history for the people, by stating plainly that the lives of ordinary men and women, and their industrial and political organisations, are worthy of attention, in the past as well as now.
Labour history rescues ordinary men and women, including the losers - those who were not flexible, or who feared the consequences of technological change, or did not appreciate fully the economic rationality of wage cuts and other sacrifices - from the enormous condescension of traditional history; the same traditional history which has so successfully killed any interest in historical enquiry for the vast majority of people enduring it in our school system.
For all of these reasons, the labour movement has shouldered a major part of the responsibility itself for the production of labour history. In this way, the labour movement has created its own history in the twofold role of actor and recorder. The importance of this is that labour consequently defines its own future.
The public sector is the most significant base for trade unionism in Australia and internationally, and the PSA is one of the oldest and most significant general public sector unions in Australia and the world. It is also one of the largest state union organisations of any kind (top four in NSW), and indeed, until the recent spate of union amalgamations in Australia, it was in the top twenty unions by size on a national level, even though it was only based in one State.
Furthermore, since a majority of its members have always been administrative, clerical or professional employees, the PSA also represents one of the earliest substantial forms of white collar unionism. Yet, at the same time, its organisation of blue collar public sector workers in a genuine industrial union has made the PSA (and its equivalents in other states) unique in Australia and overseas, for much of its history. A high proportion of its membership were also female from an early stage, which makes it one of the earliest examples of mass female unionisation.
For all of these reasons, the history of the PSA provides a highly significant record of public sector employment and industrial relations in NSW throughout the twentieth century.
This was symbolised by the participation of PSA members and officers in the recent MUA lockout of 1998. This lockout repeated many of the events and themes of the great 1890 Maritime Strike. This strike was significant for marking the beginning of a decade which bears an uncanny resemblance to the 1990s, in terms of employer assaults on wages and conditions, the predominance of conservative governments favouring employers, the importance of globalization in determining economic and industrial outcomes in Australia, the employer catch-cry of 'freedom of association' or non-union individual contracts, employer and conservative resistance to establishment or maintenance of general industrial standards through legislation, and major cutbacks in the public sector.
It was largely in response to this that a Labor Party was formed to attempt to redress the balance in favour of workers through parliamentary means, and of course, in 1899 that the PSA was formed specifically in response to the retrenchments and other cutbacks in the public service of that time and stealing from superannuation funds by the government of the day.
Marx wrote of the tendency of history to repeat itself, the second time as farce. We hope that he is right with the eventual outcomes of current efforts to wind back the political consensus of the past century which has given workers and their industrial representatives a recognised place in the body politic and civic society.
Whatever this outcome, we do know that the PSA will play a major role in defending the rights of a significant proportion of the working men and women of Australia.
Janet Good on the PSA's Early Days
Today is a truly historic occasion for the Public Service Association. It was exactly 100 years ago today that a meeting of public servants came together not far from where we are now, and decided to form the Association.
I might just quote from an article appearing in the first edition of the "Public Service Journal" of January, 1900, which describes that meeting;
"On the 16th of March last year a meeting of Public Servants, convened by advertisement, was held in Aaron's Exchange Hotel, Sydney, for the purpose of considering the advisability of forming a Public Service Association.
"There was a large attendance, and Mr Stephen Murphy, Police Magistrate, was voted to the chair. After discussion the Association was formed, and a provisional committee, consisting of three representatives from each Ministerial Department, was elected. A week later the committee met and made arrangements for drafting a constitution. Some time was occupied in this important work, and on the 27th April the draft constitution was adopted."
And so the Association was born. The article goes on to say that the meeting held to adopt the draft constitution was presided over by a Mr Beaver, the Clerk of the Peace. The Journal says that Mr Beaver, "...delivered a thoughtful and interesting address. He explained the objects of the Association, and pointed out that its foundational principle was loyalty to the Government."
The Journal further quotes Mr Beaver as saying:
"We have in our midst a society of people determined to loyal and faithful service to the State. But though we have a loyal and faithful service, we must have a fearless service. I mean a service which will not be spineless, or a cringing, craving service, which is always indicative of that which is wrong, because ultimately they would find that a service which dare not express its views in a reasonable and proper manner, and dare not ask for what was legitimately its rights, was bound, more or less, to be a menace to the State."
These are views which would strike a chord with public sector workers today. Despite the 100 year old prose that the Journal uses to describe the Association's formation, the driving force behind it was the fact that public servants, as individuals, could not achieve what they considered to be proper rates of pay and conditions.
They decided that collective bargaining, through an Association, was the answer. That answer, despite Peter Reith's attempts to turn the clock back 100 years with his individual contracts of employment, is still just as valid today.
The "Public Service Journal" goes on to describe reactions to the PSA's formation. I quote again -
"Next day several of the public journals commented on the proceedings, all of them favourably. The Sydney Morning Herald said that "the public servants of New South Wales are justified in taking this important step; the only wonder is it was not taken long ago. Here we have a body of civil servants who, taking them all round, are second to none in the British Empire.
"Their ability is admitted on all hands. To their ability in the work of the various departments must be added their habit of faithful and loyal service. They know what they have to do, and they do it with a will. But in order that they can do it at their very best, they should be, in justice to the country as well as to themselves, independent of everything except lawful authority."
In this regard, times certainly have changed. A Sydney daily newspaper, or radio station, or television station editorialising in favour of public servants and public sector unionism is something I would like to see a lot more of today.
Much has changed in the Association in the hundred years that have gone by. The PSA was formed, and for many years was dominated, by men. This was a reflection of society as it was. Today, over half the Association's members are women, and women play a major role in all aspects of the PSA's operations.
We have had a woman President, women Vice-Presidents, and women General Secretaries, and the Women's Council has been part of our formal structure for over 60 years. The PSA has always been at the forefront of pay equity issues. As far back as 1922, the PSA ran a campaign for equal pay for women clerks in the public service.
Due to the prevailing climate at the time, the campaign was unsuccessful, but the union continued to be involved in the fight. One of the best known names in NSW in the equal pay fight was Jean Arnott, a member of the PSA. We now have an annual award for service to women members named after Jean Arnott.
Although equal pay for the same work was achieved some years ago, genuine pay equity between awards was much harder to gain, and I would like to pay tribute to your Government Mr Premier, and in particular to the Attorney-General, Jeff Shaw, for the pay equity enquiry.
Also, for all of its existence, the Association has been campaigning for permanency for long-term temporary public service employees, many of whom are women.
I am pleased to say that after 100 years we have finally achieved this aim, and I would like to thank you, Mr Premier, for your Government's co-operation in making that possible.
While we are still known as the Public Service Association, many other unions have amalgamated with us over the years. All these amalgamations have been successful ones (unlike some of those at Federal level), and they include the Petty Sessions Officers' Association, the various unions representing staff in the Rural Lands Protection Boards, the Forestry Field Officers Association, the Joint Coal Board Staff Association, the University Library Officers Association and most recently, the Professional Officers' Association. The PSA is strengthened by these types of kindred amalgamations, and they have made us a better organisation.
Might I conclude with one last quote from the article in the "Public Service Journal" to which I have previously referred:
"It only remains to be said that the success which has followed the efforts to establish the Public Service Association has exceeded the expectations of the promoters.
The body promises to be one of the strongest organisations of the kind in the world, and it appears to be destined to have a career of great usefulness. It is to be hoped that every civil servant in the colony will become a member of the Association."
While we're no longer part of a colony (and hopefully we'll soon be part of a republic), those words are prophetic. We have achieved an enormous amount in the last hundred years, far more than the PSA's founders could have ever dreamed; but the union is only as effective as its members allow it to be.
It is my fervent hope also that "every civil servant .... will become a member of the Association", because the more members we have, the better we can represent them.
If we can do that, the Public Service Association will thrive and prosper, not only for another hundred years, but way beyond.
If you would like to submit a history feature, contact our History Editor Dr Lucy Taksa: mailto:[email protected]
by Peter Lewis
A suave suited Senator transformed into a hooded rapper? Sounds the stuff of cartoons only, but Warren Beatty manages to bring this delicious scenario to life in this (mainly) progressive political satire.
Bullworth is a jaded liberal running for re-election to the Californian Senate; sick of the deals, sick of the hypocrisy, sick of having to start every speech with the platitude "we stand at the dawn of a new millennium".
When he makes the decision to hire an assassin to take his own life, he is suddenly infused with the courage and bravado of someone with nothing to lose. He starts telling the truth, admitting to a Negro congregation that the Democrats gave up on them years ago and telling Hollywood studio bosses they make crap movies. Banks, health insurance and oil companies are all in his sights as he brazenly admits who is pulling his strings.
Crossing a line, he plunges himself into the black nightlife, following a trio of young women who sign up after his sermon; he survives the night and enters a new day with rap and rhythm in his sleep-deprived soul.
His new lease of life is short-lived, however, shattered by the knowledge that the assassin is out there somewhere and he must oscillate between the freedom of impending oblivion and the fear that this is now an unwanted fate. But who is the shooter? And what will be their price?
What follows is a rollicking farce, a series of chase scenes linked to set-pieces which flip the normal spin of contemporary politics and asks the question; is this the way the game has to be played? While the thought of Bob Carr in an anorak is too shocking to contemplate, the ideas of injecting real (rather than feigned) passion into political dialogue, having fun with words rather than torturing them and having a go rather than fearing a slip-up have great appeal.
The movie also provides a more than superficial snapshot into the collision between money politics and the Black America which it has so betrayed. While some of the characters' dialogues sometime sound a bit too much like a Politics One tutorial, their very presence in a mainstream flick is a breath of fresh air. When, for instance, was the last time you heard the word "socialism" or saw the media elite outed as such in a mainstream US flick?
Indeed, one of the main positives of this film is the very fact that it was made. As McKenzie Wark argued last week, a major challenge for progressive politics is to establish a foothold in popular culture. This is Hollywood and perhaps only a star of Beatty's celebrity could ever get this sort of project up.
Yet, within the strengths of this film also lie its weaknesses.
The betrayal of black people is ultimately, stereotypical; with the characters being idealised when they could have been understood. Beatty's adoption of rap lingo is cringe material, as if rhyming the slang is all there is to it. How would black Americans really feel about a member of the Establishment appropriating their form of expression and protest? Worse, the transformation of gangsters to 'good' citizens is predictably inspired by the white hero, undoing any messages of self-empowerment which may have been intended.
And Hollywood being Hollywood (and Beatty being Beatty) the film sadly lapses into schmaltz in its dying scenes; a few well-chosen words is all it takes to get the beautiful young black activist to fall for the great white middle-aged leader. At the end of the day, it is still the dominant culture which prevails and while Bullworth has been humanised he is still a Hollywood hero and the bit players still know that they can only exist on his periphery.
Whilst it is a courageous call for a privileged filmmaker to go on the line against the various forms of power and establishment including his own entertainment industry, it is sad, though predictable, that his own ego ultimately ends up taking centre stage.
by Peter Lewis
Turn the radio on and as much air time is being given to the professional pollsters as to the politicians on whose fates they prognosticate.
Election campaigns have become so devoid of ideological content, that there is plenty of surplus energy to channel into the horse race and, as a lover of the punt, Workers Online can't resist having a go ourselves.
In the past week, the campaign proper has all become a bit of a blur. The simultaneous campaign launches were nothing if not predictable; there's been the constant stream of set-piece promises and no obvious gaffes.
The Labor advertisements have been safe and effective, while the Libs continue to run negative. This reflects the parties relative positions in the published polls: Labor are in the lead and want to keep a steady ship, while the Liberals are desperately trying to claw their way back into the contest.
So how will it play out in the final week? There are three theories afoot:
Theory One: The Landslide
Carr holds his lead in the polls, sweeping to power and picking up seats through Sydney and the bush. This scenario is based on two premises: first that the polls putting him 55-45 ahead are correct and second that the swings will be uniform.
There's big question marks over both these assumptions. With a large undecided vote, at this point above ten per cent, the 10 point lead is illusory. Moreover, more women are undecided and women are still more likely to vote for Chikka.
The rule of thumb is that 40 per cent of voters are undecided in the final week of an election and 40 per cent of these don't make their mind up until they are actually in the polling booth.
A further red herring is the fact that, unlike in the federal election, there is no automatic flow of preferences. If voters just put a "1" in a box, say the Democrats, their vote is exhausted; so the assumption behind the two party split equalling 100 per cent is wrong.
Theory Two: The Scattergun
The swing to Carr holds, but is not translated across the board, leaving the election hanging on a few desperately tight marginal seats.
This is what occurred in the federal election; Labor won back its heartland, but the big swings came in safe Labor seats. Labor won 51 per cent of the vote, but fell eight seats short.
According to this theory, the election will be decided in a handful of hotly contested marginal seats like Ryde, Kogarah and Strathfield. Remember, the redistribution means that Labor actually needs to win seats to hold office so if the Coalition can control the marginals as well as it did last October, they could still snatch office.
The thing about marginal seats is that it can be very localised issues that carry the day. A survey in one key marginal, for instance, had the main issue as aircraft noise. This is a purely federal issue, so how this translates into votes is anyone's guess: will voters blame the State Government or the Coalition for the sins of their federal colleagues?
If you subscribe to this theory, it might be just as scientific to toss a coin.
Theory Three: Too Close To Call
The trend over the last two elections continues and the big poll leads enjoyed by the incumbents two weeks out disappear into thin air and the election becomes a knife edge. In 1991, Greiner was 14 per cent ahead a fortnight before the poll. Fahey had an eight point lead at the same point in 1995. In both cases the result came down to one or two seats.
The Libs will be hoping history repeats itself. Unfortunately for them there are a couple of distinguishing features in this campaign. First, Chikarovski has gone nowhere near approaching the constant pressure which Carr applied from Opposition. Second, the Liberals are proposing a radical reform agenda, including power privatisation which has little community support.
To narrow the gap like Carr did, the Liberals need to pull a few rabbits out of the hat. With the power sale proceeds there's no shortage of cash, but its hard to imagine what they could come up with to turn the electorate in less than seven days.
So who'll win?
A week out, you'd rather be Carr but there is a bit of politics to be played out yet. For mine, I think Theory two will prevail, with Labor's marginal seat campaigns building on Carr's campaigning superiority to get the advantage needed to win.
Then again, I tipped Labor to win the last two federal elections..
Workers OnLine Reader's Poll
Tip the outcome and win a lunch at Sydney's classiest Chinese restaurant, BBQ King, with NSW Minister for Industrial Relations Jeff Shaw!
Raised on a steady cultural diet of globalism, individualism, sport, America-worship, parochialism and visual imagery - the under 30s have little understanding of possible alternatives to the dog-eat-dog system of capitalism and unconstrained "competition."
****
"Solidarity forever!" "Err ... umm, please explain, and make it snappy like."
This hypothetical exchange simply demonstrates how quickly inter-generational tensions have replaced the class warfare of old.
On one hand, there is no shortage of people who will tell you the young of today are selfish and violent criminals.
On the other hand, the under 30s rightly criticise the job-hogging baby boomers - who also dominate the labour movement - as the most selfish, shallow, complacent, self-indulgent and materialistic generation of scum-bags since Nero's yuppies sucked the Roman empire dry.
While there are all kinds of underlying causes for a rapidly expanding generation gap, it's hard to go past the fact that in 1990s Australia, there is little commonality of experience.
For the labour movement this means the democratic socialist notions that have propelled the movement since 1945 - the unquestioned assumptions, a commitment to collective action and a belief in the ability of the State to protect society's weak and vulnerable - do not mean anything to Generation X.
How could this be? Sneak a glance at the formative environment. The under 30s -raised on a steady cultural diet of globalism, individualism, sport, America-worship, parochialism and visual imagery - have little comprehension of possible alternatives to the dog-eat-dog system of capitalism and unconstrained "competition."
Their reality is a tacky - and shamefully unquestioned - world built on rugged wild-west individualism, beggar-thy-neighbour economics and materialistic bullshit.
Worse still - for two generations now facing the most negative career prospects in post-war Australia - the Trade Union movement is widely perceived as an irrelevant dinosaur.
Incredible stuff.
Yet beyond the power world of perceptions, there has probably never been a greater need for effective and democratic unions.
In the fast food joints, fashion sweatshops and hospitality businesses where unskilled young people try to shelter from the storm, most end up exploited and dumped like empty cans ... and that's just the way it goes.
McJobs or long term unemployment, a narcotic-pandemic and environmental degradation, youth suicide, the practical implications of user-pays philosophy and $400-a-week rents - these are the issues that bite the under 30s. Yet such legitimate concerns are either ignored or distorted by the baby-boomer elites and mass media drongos.
Yes, as a tub-thumping friend likes to say, capitalism always promises more than it can deliver - and this time it has really gone overboard - yes, American trade union membership is on the rise again, and yes, the balance of power in Australia has swung so far in favour of speculators and the idle rich that there is bound to be a backlash.
Really? In the face of an onslaught of truly Dickensian inequality and injustice, where are the alternatives?
Where is the focused public dissent?
And where the fuck has the labour movement been? Locked away in meaningless factional argy-bargy? Refusing to learn the obvious lessons of 1996? Getting its knickers in a dogmatic twist about the lost cause of privatisation?
My summation is simple: the movement often reacts to other people's agendas. We know how to say no. But when did the movement last set the agenda on social or youth policy? On energy and environment?
Collectively the best the labour movement has been offering as big picture solutions to the fifth class citizenship offered the young are patronising sermons or indifference; police crackdowns and an increasing tendency to 'duck' the issues that might upset rabid old white men like Alan Jones and Piers Ackerman.
The generally dismal outcomes of the Hawke/Keating era support the Generation X proposition that our society would benefit from new ideas, new people, new and more realistic perspectives and new political "products."
From street-level it's easy to see how out of touch the labour movement has become. The result? The movement's political influence will continue to decline along with social justice and industrial equity.
Yet, given the exploitative misery that work has become for the great majority of people at the end of the millennium, a "rebranded" labour movement in keeping with the times would trigger an incredibly rapid rebound in union and ALP membership - particularly among the young who suffer most.
We need to offer practical solutions and be more representative. Please note that does not mean "dumbing down" the message, it simply means learning the language of the customer.
So in the interest of kick-starting the debate, here are some possible ways to rebrand the movement's image:
� Proactive recruitment of young people in growth industries with "free" trial memberships;
� Promote labour movement equivalents of Natasha Stott-Despoja and ensure they are the televisual face of labour;
� Start offering alternatives to the policies being opposed. It's too easy to just say no, a form of intellectual laziness that has badly infected the left. Why would the general public get upset about privatisation when the only State organ that should definitely be publicly owned, the Commonwealth Bank, was sold years ago by one Paul Keating esq?;
� Set up the best loyalty marketing program in the country - an ACTU equivalent of the Qantas Telstra Visa card - which leads to the perfect slogan for materialistic times "it pays to belong";
� Launch major social justice campaigns on, for example, sweat shop workers and their children;
� Curb nepotism - the only way to demonstrate we are progressive organisations open to young people, is to accept people on merit, not connections;
� Stop trying to be all things to all people. Stop wasting resources on farmers and the north shore - these people will never support the labour movement and our policies should reflect that. Why, for example, wasn't an ambitious 'westie' backbencher despatched to Avalon during the Baywatch fiasco to remind the silvertails that "their beach" is public property. "Showing" the North Shore would have been a big winner with at least 90% of the people of Sydney;
� Use public campaigns on sexual harassment and workplace safety in the small business sector to build credibility with undecided middle Australia;
� Media train spokespeople and start to proactively engage business and economic mythology on a daily basis;
� Use the Internet to increasingly by-pass the "off line" electronic media. Spend a year building a huge e-mail data base by offering prizes of free cars, holidays, etc;
� Do not patronise young people by 'dumbing down' the message. While we need more relevant marketing vehicles, young people are already filled with a refreshing desire to build a better society and are looking for opportunities, not pats on the collective head;
� Use satire as a campaigning weapon ... and recruiting tool;
� Make better use of television. Prepare digital 'file' footage of issues and spokespeople and apply "image control" over the labour movement. As part of this process, ban public appearances by officials with "pommie" accents
In short, comrades, we improve our industrial services, we become the one major structure in modern Australia that is not overrun by baby boomer swine, we offer fresh ideas and real solutions to the curse of globalisation, and we offer individual economic benefits that would make an NRMA member jealous.
One point should be clearly understood. The past, comrades, is the past. The future is in young people, a labour movement freed of the shackles of dogma, a labour movement focused on outcomes, not dogmatic processes.
Continue preaching to an ageing converted, the membership shrinkage will accelerate and two generations will be fully devoured by voracious capitalist dogs.
Believe me when I say, we have a lot of catching up to do ...
Ray Hunt is a Sydney-based broadcaster and writer. He refuses to disclose his Generational orientation
by Peter Lewis
Bribes were paid to IOC officials, the papers report breathlessly. And when it came to the sucking up of the delegates, Sydney was up to its neck in the brown matter.
Hello! What did you think was going on back in 1993? That the ritual crawling that included sickly page one editorials to King Juan and those all-expenses paid trips were just part of our breezy hospitality?
For those who don't remember, 1993 was a scary time for Sydney-siders disloyal enough to think the Games may not be such a good idea.
With major media outlets given seats on the Bid Committee and an almost paranoiac belief that any Games criticism would create a domino-like collapse of the Bid, there were no column inches available for the nay-sayers.
Worse, there was a public frowning down upon any sort of dissent, as if it was our patriotic duty as Sydneysiders to love the Games.
After all what news value could there be in questioning a celebration of doped athletes, fueling nationalistic fervour in what had become a marketing event for a few select trans-nationals?
What interest could there be in the millstone we were tying around our necks? The sale of the Showgrounds? The cuts to public spending on health and education? The higher taxes?
After all, we were embracing the vogue growth model of the time; the mega-project, we would create jobs by building sports stadiums and roads to get people there. Simple. The notion that there was nothing sustainable about this sort of economics did not appear to cross anyone's mind at the time.
About the only person to speak out against the Games at the time was Sydney's official historian, Dr Shirley Fitzgerald who questioned the need for 'total public support'. She likened the limits on free expression critical of the Games to some of the other cities Sydney was attempting to distinguish itself from.
Her comments, unlike those of every two-bit athlete and soap star were broadcast on 2SER and carried by AAP, but were not picked up by the mainstream press.
It was left to a very few journalists to raise any questions about the Games: Steve McDonnell on ABC radio, Ross Coulthardt, then with Four Corners, 2SER and yours truly, then sending stories into the ether at AAP.
McDonnell remenbers being personally attacked by then Olympics Minister Bruce Baird for questioning him over the removal of armaments from the Olympics site to Jervis Bay at one press conference.
"If anyone gets in the way of the Bid, then watch out," Baird said at the time.
This is tha same guy who recently alleged, then recanted, that there had been a deal amongst media proprietors not to run negative stories in the lead-up to the vote.
But it wasn't just Baird. McDonnell says there was equal hostility from other members of the media after the conference was over.
Remembering the feeling at the time, it was like nothing I had ever experienced. You felt yourself being watched, suspected your phone of being tapped.
The Bid PR flak accused me of being a wanker as he officially described suggestions of public censorship of criticism as "crap". And maybe I was. Who was I to spoil this orgy of self-satisfaction.
To criticise The Bid amounted to state treachery. For the Bairds and Faheys who now rule over more than NSW there was a desperate need to embrace all things Olympic, so that the flashing of a few mega-bucks would have seemed like nothing at all.
And on the big night I stood back from the thousands who lined the Harbour foreshore, certain I would see the realisation of my city's folly as the games went to Beijing.
But no, I heard those dreaded three syllabyles "Sid-o-nee" and the self-congratulation, the fireworks and me sitting there with my head in my hands, not wanting to think what the late 1990's would be like.
And now that future is almost upon us; the roads are blocked, the budget is blowing and we're starting to realise that the Olympics are not a synonym for virtue
So enough of the mock outrage people, you reap what you sow. Expect much more fear and loathing or join me on some Greek Island in September 2000, when I will not be cheering for anybody, apart from the man with the bottle of ouzo.
While the primary focus of the changes have been on the new rules of injury management, changes to scheme administration and injury prevention are even more profound.
They are part of the Carr Government's attempt to rescue a scheme that has faced severe financial difficulties since the former Fahey Government set unsustainable premium and benefit levels.
In a package of reforms introduced into State Parliament last year the Carr Government shifted the focus of the scheme towards the prevention and management of injuries.
One of the key changes was the establishment of the Workers Compensation Advisory Council, a body of employer and union representatives charged with overseeing the WorkCover Authority.
NSW workers are represented by Tony Sheldon (TWU), Ian West (LHMU), Sandra Moaitt (Nurses), Andrew Ferguson (CFMEU) and myself on behalf of the Labor Council.
One of the outcomes of this process has been that union and employer representatives have worked cooperatively to bring in the changes necessary to keep the scheme afloat.
The idea behind the Advisory Council is to give control of the scheme back to its primary stakeholders, rather than keeping it in a distant bureaucracy.
The Council will have responsibility for all occupational health and safety and workers compensation legislation; but the driving ideas are expected to come from newly formed Industry Reference Groups
The groups are listed below, with the trade unions sitting on each group in brackets:
These groups have responsibility for identifying problem spots in industries before they become trends; an early-warning system that will not only contain scheme costs but, more importantly, cut the number of preventable injuries.
For trade unions, the new structure also provides a platform for them to represent the interests of their members at a grass-roots level.
It is an opportunity that all unions should embrace.
by Peter Lewis
Take last Thursday's column. On the left of the page is a rant against the Greens for their progressive drugs policy, which includes shifting the focus from looking at heroin as a crime problem to a health and social issue and decriminalising marijuana.
Rather than engage in this valid debate, Piers opts to accuse the Greens of writing "this ridiculous policy ... under the influence of toxic substances under the light of a Byron Bay moon".
He then accuses the Greens of ignoring the "numbers of people who currently pass through the criminal courts charged with extremely violent crimes which they claim are due to cannabis-based psychosis".
Yet to the right of the page is a little piece titled "Vineyards continue to blossom" which can only be interpreted as an advertisement for the wine industry. Margin's verdelho is described as "stunning"; Lehman's shiraz is "a real knockout".
But wait. No mention of the social costs of alcohol? The violence inside and outside the home caused by alcohol abuse? The "psychosis" experienced by long-term abusers of the drug? The large number of deaths on the road where alcohol is involved?
Indeed, medical experts were this week warning that cask wine was five time more dangerous than heroin, with 10 alcohol-related deaths per day.
Any mention of this?
Not a word. Instead an unashamed plug for the drug: "with export sales rising so spectacularly it might be worth tasting these wines before they disappear overseas."
But that's not all. At the bottom of the page he invites us deep into his psyche with his eulogy to Phantom creator Lee Falk. One can only wonder what role this hero had in Piers' own development.
He describes the Phantom as "quiet, elusive and always a fair fighter" who would fight off "a scrum of assorted villians" so he could enjoy a glass of milk in peace. The parallels are delectable.
It makes you realise what a complex character our Piers actually is, fantasising about his fight against evil until he emerges as his very own super-hero; the masked columist: a wine-supping, Phantom-loving hombre who hates drugs.
© 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/5/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 |