The ground breaking proposition would set up a process to investigate the feasibility of requiring all employers to pay LSL payments into a centralised fund to be accessed after workers have spent ten years in employment.
Options would include modelling on a Long Service Leave fund that has worked successfully in the building industry for decades, where employers make weekly payments to cover the LSL entitlements. Interest from that money pool is then used to reduce the levels of payment required and to fund industry projects.
The proponents of the proposal - LHMU state secretary Annie Owens and the Labor Council's Chris Christodoulou, - will argue that universal Long Service Leave should be the right of all workers.
"As work becomes increasingly tenuous, the reality is that people are just not staying in the one job for ten years," Owens says.
"But this doesn't mean that the need for a break from work every decade has disappeared - indeed with increased stress and insecurity, it has never been more needed."
Owens says many of her members are now contractors in cleaning, security and catering, where they work for many years in the one industry, but find their employer changing regularly.
And other employees in emerging areas such as information technology, hospitality and tourism, finance need to shift from one employer to another in order to access career opportunities or experience and so never become eligible.
Christodoulou says this means many workers never get the chance for blocks of leave to allow them to rest, recuperate or have time to improve their education or skills after they have been in the workforce for a substantial period of time.
The resolution calls for a working party to be established to investigate the broad issue with a view to handing down recommendations to translate long service leave principles to the new workforce.
by Andrew Casey
The Military Government has ordered that all Fijian overseas appointments be terminated, and that only indigenous Fijians be allowed to represent the Pacific Island nation in overseas missions, according to the Fijian public sector union.
On a different issue the Fiji TUC has written to Commodore Bainimarama about a 'disgusting incident ' this morning when twelve thugs were freed by local police.
The police were stood over by the brother of the Commissioner of Police and told to release the twelve criminals who were freed and taken back to the Parliamentary complex in the back of a military truck.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the island from the capital, Suva, a major pro-Democracy, pro-Labour rally will be held near Nadi.
The rally is in Viseisei Village,at 2pm tomorrow, and has been organised by Western Fiji high chiefs to show that the indigenous Fijian community backs the legitimate constitutional government - not George Speight.
Importantly this part of Fiji was the home base of the first elected - and deposed - Labour leader, Timoci Bavadra and is now the region from which the current constitutional PM, Mahendra Chaudry, comes from.
Chaudry, and the other members of his government in the Parliamentary complex, have now been held hostage for two weeks.
The Fiji Public Service Association (PSA) sent urgent faxes this afternoon to the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, and a range of other government leaders in the South Pacific area, asking that they immediately suspend all technical assistance and support to their country.
PSA General Secretary, Rajeshwar Singh, said the public sector was continuing to provide normal support , and following the directions of, the Military Government.
" Our members have given support even though they understand this is an unlawful and unconstitutional overthrown of a constitutional government," Mr Singh said.
However members were very angry, Mr Singh said, because within hours of taking over the reins of power Commodore Bainimarama, made a series of public sector appointments which broke all the Fiji Public Service Commission rules of non-racial preferment.
" The independent Public Services Commission has been terminated and thus there is no restraint possible on the implementation of these policies."
TUC Secretary, Felix Anthony, has written to the Commodore to protest the Central Police Station incident in Suva this morning.
In his letter Mr Anthony says: "Major Savua arrived at the Central Police Station and angrily shouted at the police officers and threatened that he would get the guns from the Parliamentary complex and 'fix' the officers concerned.
" The morale of the Police Service is indeed very low and we have been informed that they have just closed up all files, so to speak, and are rightly of the view that all their efforts in maintaining law and order are in vain.
" The question goes begging is what Authority Major Savua has, as a dishonourably discharged army officer, to issue instructions to the Police and to use the Royal Fiji Military Forces truck," Mr Anthony asks in his letter to the Commodore.
Major Savua is the brother of the head of the police service. Early in this crisis he dramatically marched a group of uniformed, but unarmed, Army territorials through the front gate of the Parliamentary complex in full view of the international media and announced their support for George Speight.
There are now increasing reports of widespread economic collapse in Fiji.
The Fiji Ministry of Education has ordered that all schools remain closed for another week. Students already have been home almost one month.
They had just returned to school after their first term holidays when four days later the schools shut down after George Speight and his armed gunmen took Prime Minister Chaudhry and his government hostage.
In the Western part of the main island of Fiji, Viti Levu, the largest garment factory Ghim Li Fashion, which employs more than 1000 people, is facing major problems with the current crisis, according to Fiji radio reports.
Ghim Li says it is set to lose about $2 million if it fails to export two shipments to the United States, the company's main export market.
The US is expecting one shipment this month and another next month. With the current situation, the company doubts if it will be able to ship the goods in time.
The major problem is workers not turning up to work since the People's Government was taken hostage at gunpoint and the subsequent riots in Suva two week ago.
Curfew restrictions imposed by the military are also not of much help.
The factory says that several of its workers could be laid off in the worst case scenario or if things don't improve quickly.
Fiji's garment industry, which employs 19,000 people, was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. With Fiji facing a major economic downturn after the 1987 military coups, the then Interim Administration gave incentives, including 13-year tax free holidays, to garment firms to set up in Fiji and help create mass employment.
Elsewhere at least 300 villagers have also become victims of the current political crisis affecting the country.
Local handicraft company Sandollars that employed the villagers has laid them off.
The company exported coconut oil, soaps and creams.
The villagers earned $8000 a month supplying coconut products and other items to the company.
Many companies around the country are retrenching workers as the crisis continues.
The ACTU's Fiji Crisis Committee this afternoon heard update reports of the effectiveness of the bans on Fiji being imposed by Australian unions and other international unions.
All the Australian bans are now in place and holding.
The ship, Direct Kookaburra, arrived in Sydney from Fiji today and unloaded 30-40 boxes which have been stockpiled. The ship will leave Sydney to go back to Fiji with nothing on board.
In Melbourne on Monday, the Kapitan Tasman, will arrive on Monday. Again the cargo will be unloaded but stockpiled on the docks.
The guidelines come in response to growing concern about the impact of competitive tendering on rural communities and heads off a looming ALP State Conference showdown on the issue.
Unions have argued through the State Labor Consultative Committee that competitive tendering and contracting out were unfair to public sector workers, whose conditions were not matched by the competing firms.
And with many firms bussing in workers for rail maintenance and road works, rural towns were being devastated when contracts were lost.
While Scully announced a halt to track maintenance competitive tenders last months, the guidelines represent a comprehensive approach across all his transport-related portfolios/
Under the guidelines, all enterprises tendering for projects greater than $5 million in value would have to produce an industrial relations strategy, including award or enterprise agreement, which would be referred to the Labor council.
Successful tenderers would have an obligation to evidence they were complying with all their legal and employment obligations. These would be included as performance measure sin contracts.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the guidelines are an important step to restoring sanity to government enterprises.
"The process allows unions to have a say in what conditions ought to apply to work that is contracted out," he says.
Costa says the next step is to stop competitive tendering altogether and replace with it with a process of benchmarking that would give public sector workers a clear indication of requirements and then provide the opportunity, training and resources to meet them.
Thousands of Sydney workers will rally outside the Australian Democrat offices on Monday to encourage the minor party to help Labor block new changes that would outlaw industry wide bargaining.
While the Howard Government claims the changes are designed to stop action by militant building unions, the rally will be addressed from workers from the finance, retail and entertainment sectors to show how the laws will hurt all workers.
The broad campaign to pressure the Democrats appears to be working, with Demorcrats IR spokesman Andrew Murray indicating this week that the legislation was more flawed than he firs thought.
Pressure can be maintained on the Dems by going to the ACTU's webpage and signing the online picket. This can be found at: http://www.actu.asn.au
Labor Winds Back tide
Meanwhile, Beazley this week delivered the inaugural Fraser Lecture, where he outlined the industrial relations policy he would take to the next election.
Central to the policy will be three clear principles, as he outlined this week:
"Firstly, we will restore the powers of the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, so that it can bring back fairness in the workplace, act in the public interest, and keep the industrial peace.
"Secondly, it is essential, especially as arbitration gives way to bargaining, that the law require all parties to negotiate in good faith. Our law will support the primacy of -- and we will give precedence to -- collective forms of bargaining. But it will insist on good faith bargaining, whatever bargaining options are preferred.
"Thirdly, our law will recognise that the right of employees to act, organise and protect themselves collectively is a fundamental element of justice in the workplace."
Beazley says while he had been prepared to consider maintaining AWAs in a revised form, the evidence suggested they were beyond sal
He described them as "an expensive and complicated process with a $45 million bureaucracy to run it but which applies to less than 1% of the workforce."
"We have costed these AWAs at about $500 each, taking into account work hours in their handling. This compares with around $22 for each worker covered under the collective agreements covered by the Industrial Relations Commission,"
Amongst other promises was a restating of Labor's vow to abolish the Office of the Employment Advocate.
The offer was made to NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa today, despite earlier statements from the government that no extra pay would be provided.
Costa has welcomed the offer which will be considered by effected affiliates next Tuesday.
"It is good to see the government has moved its position and recognizes that workers will be asked to work beyond the call of duty to make the Games a success," he said.
"By tying the bonus to attendance the government is also providing an incentive to ensure that staffing levels are maintained throughout the event."
The claim would apply to all public sector workers who have their work directly affected by the Games and will be paid in a lump sum at the completion of the Games.
A separate claim for transport workers for a $300 per week bonus plus a week's extra leave is still being negotiated with the government.
by Zoe Reynolds
"Foreign shipping is torpedoing our jobs, sinking our merchant fleet and polluting our coastline," said Southern Queensland Assistant Branch Secretary Dave Perry. "We're drawing a line in the sand. We're fighting them on the beaches."
Foreign ships have dominated the carriage of Australia's international trade for decades. But coastal trade and our coast has been protected by federal legislation restricting the carriage of our domestic transport to Australian flagged and crewed vessels where possible. Now that is all changing. The government is encouraging shippers to use cheap, foreign flagged and crewed vessels - a move that has ended up in the Federal Court in Melbourne.
"Too many of these vessels employ unskilled, sweated labour, holding fraudulent certification," said Dave Perry. "Many of them have to bribe manning agents to get jobs. Far too many are abused and exploited on the job. Too many of the ships are rustbuckets. It's a recipe for disaster. The Australian public would not pile on the top of overloaded buses or trains from India, nor would they like sharing the roads with trucks registered in the Philippines.
"This is especially so if they knew the people driving them are paid starvation wages and go without sleep for days at a time. We're calling on Australians to keep our beaches free of cheap shipping. We're raising the alarm so people know we are now at greater risk of ships running aground covering our beaches with oil."
The Queensland Year 2000, Old Malibu championships, are being held at Coolangatta Beach, on June 3, starting at 7.30am and going all weekend. Sausage sizzle, 9.30am. All welcome.
At the same time the Southern NSW Branch will hold a friendly surfing competition and environmental awareness campaign with the Koori community on North Wollongong Beach. An estimated 70 contestants will compete from 8am on Saturday, going all weekend, with lunch provided for families and friends. Visitors welcome.
"Indigenous Australians more than any others understand the threat an influx of substandard shipping will bring to this country," said Branch Secretary Mark Armstrong. "They didn't exactly welcome the first fleet. The destruction that another wave of foreign shipping will bring to our shores will be devastating."
The workers at Salmat, in Sydney's west, are maintaining a picket outside the premises and despite management's attempt to use scab labour, output is down to about 25 per cent.
Salmat provides mail services to government authorities like CentreLink, as well as major financial institutions include NAB, Commonwealth Bank and Citibank.
AMWU printing division organiser Mark West says the strike is over the companies' demands in current enterprise negotiations to impose 12 hour shifts, cut the Saturday shift allowance and scrap public holiday loadings.
"The employer is genuinely offended that the people are refusing to agree to the deal," West says.
Salmat is a newly unionised workplace and West says the workers are remaining strong, despite some harassment on the picket.
And he's warned that people who rely on mail from CentreLink to start expecting delays as the impact of the action begins to hit home.
The action by members of the Finance Sector Union comes as the Federal Tresuer Peter Costello approved the merger of the CBA with Colonial - which will cost up to 4,500 jobs and 300 branch closures.
Branch secretary Peter Riordan says CBA staff hate inconveniencing their customers, but they know that unless they stand up to the Bank, it will continue cutting corners on service and treating employees and average customers with disdain.
"CBA staff want to see an end to their customers waiting in long queues, they want the abuse from customers to stop and they want to again feel proud about where they work. That can only happen if the Bank starts providing adequate staff in all areas", Roirdan says.
During Enterprise Bargaining negotiations over the past five months the FSU has also been demanding that the CBA provide its employees with a decent pay rise of 6.5% per year.
In the 43 EBA meetings so far, the CBA has arrogantly dismissed its customer and staff needs by offering no more staff, an insulting pay rise of 2% per year coupled with a risky performance pay scheme.
"The CBA has recorded profits of more than $2 billion dollars in the past eighteen months, so there's no question that it can afford to provide adequate staff and to pay them a fair wage, Roirdan says . "Other banks are already paying their staff more.".
Death to Regional Banking
Meanwhile FSU National Secretary Tony Beck says the Treasurer's decision to approve the merger of CBA/Colonial means "the future of regional banking in this country is in doubt.
"The Treasurer's failure to act in the public interest in this instance means the floodgates have opened for future mergers. And the only winner will be the banks who will boost their already massive profits," Beck says.
"The real impact on jobs and customer service needed to be examined, and only the Treasurer had the power to make that happen," he says.
After high-level talks, the Carr Government has agreed that WEB will stay at the Department of Industrial Relations, rather than move to the Department of Women as foreshadowed in the State Budget.
This change of heart came about following a meeting that Acting General Secretary Maurie O'Sullivan and Assistant General Secretary John Cahill had with last night with Premier Bob Carr and Director-General of Premier's Col Gellately.
"This is a victory for common sense politics and policy making," says O'Sullivan, who argued the move would have taken WEB out of the mainstream of industrial relations.
However, the Government has not budged on its decision to cut the DIR's budget by $2.1 million, cutting staff in both WEB and the DIR policy division.
The PSA is also concerned at investigations to privatise the DIR's Award Enquiry Service.
by Rowan Cahill
The dispute evolved out of the break down of EBA processes earlier this year, a couple of days' stoppages in early January, and Joy management's attempt to cover one site with four separate agreements and four separate expiry dates. Pressure was put on the workers to reach an agreement and a lockout was threatened.
Workers withdrew their labour and established a picket line when the Company began to transfer unfinished work off site. That was at the end of March. A fortnight later the Company retaliated using Reith's Workplace Relations Act to lock the picketers out for three months......
On May 25 a paternalistic and intimidating letter from Joy management was sent to each locked-out worker, disparaging union efforts to resolve the dispute. It was all very nineteenth century and Master and Servantish.
Accusing unions of organising "certain disruptions", the Company reminded workers of the individual penalties they face should they defy current Supreme Court injunctions, and hinted the lockout might continue past the original three months. It was then suggested workers might like to talk matters over with management individually, apparently without union representation.
A couple of days later correspondence between the Company's legal team and solicitors representing the three unions involved in the dispute (the AMWU, AWU, and CEPU), entered the industrial arena.
Joy's solicitors began by endeavouring to allay worker concern that the Company may be in economic straits and unable to fund accrued employee entitlements.
The letter then generally suggested voluntary redundancies as a possible way forward; no numbers were mentioned, an implication being the unions seek expressions of interest amongst the locked-out workers. If volunteers came forward, the letter explained, then the Company could "reconsider its current operating structure".
On Tuesday May 30 a meeting took place at the main picket cum lockout encampment, outside the Moss Vale worksite, between the workers and union officials.
This meeting rejected talk of redundancies along these lines, regarding it as divisive. So far as the workers are concerned, if some form of radical restructuring is on the agenda, which many suspect is the case, then everything has to be negotiable and on the table.
For the present, and with the feeling that maybe not all the cards are on the table, the main issue for the workers remains what it was at the beginning of the dispute; the continuation of a single EBA for all Joy workers as opposed to the Company's proposed four separate agreements.
The meeting authorised the unions to take the matter back to Company management or its legal team, depending on who is realistic and sensible enough to deal with the union movement.
Meanwhile the locked out picket line remains in place, in spite of the onset of winter with its zero overnight temperatures, strong winds, rain, sleet, and light falls of snow.
ASU national call centre coordinator Colin Lynch says the union push for uniform AWAs by the Advocate in conjunction with a major call centre employer representative, the ATA, is evidence of the Howard Government's hypocrisy.
The two bodies have developed a document that aims to make it easier for employers to introduce and standardise specific wages and conditions across the call centre industry. This framework provides detailed clauses which can be copied directly in to an AWA.
And contradicting the claims of the OEA and Minister Peter Reith that the role of the OEA is to assist both employees and employers in reaching mutually beneficial agreements the OEA has restricted access to the framework to employers only.
"The ASU believes that in many cases this will lead to reduced wages and conditions for call centre workers," Lynch says.
The framework includes:
- minimising the scope of penalty rates be expanding the spread of ordinary hours;
- ensuring that pay rises are determined by employer evaluation only;
- removing the 17.5 per cent loading on holidays
- limiting the ability to accrue annual leave
- preventing workers taking any form of industrial action
"There is little choice or joy for workers in this framework with no place for collective representation from their unions," Lynch says.
The ASU is advising workers confronted with an AWA to contact the union immediately for advice. Workers do not have to accept AWAs but once they are implemented at a workplace it is more difficult to get rid of them.
The union suggests the way to overcome these AWAs is for workers to organise their workplace and negotiate a collective agreement with their employers.
The hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday 6 June 2000. Outworkers and their supporters will be assembling next Wednesday at 9.45 am outside the Federal Court, corner of William St and Lonsdale St, Melbourne.
In the lead up to the court case Australian Fair Wear campaigners are promoting their new Web-site www.stopthesweatshops.com.
They are asking people throughout Australia, and the Cyberspace world, to visit the site and use the free fax and e-mail service to send a message to Nike about their misuse of homebased workers.
You can get a lot more information about homebased work and the sweatshops at this new Fair Wear site.
Nike say that they don't use homebased workers, but the TCFUA have evidence from workers and factories that the work is being contracted out to outworkers.
Fair Wear want Nike to sign the Homeworkers Code of Practice. Nike refuses to the sign the Code.
The Homeworkers Code of Practice asks that outworkers have the same pay and conditions as factory workers, as the law stipulates. Unfortunately, outworkers are a hidden workforce.
Most outworkers don't know about their rights, and Nike certainly aren't telling them. The Homeworkers Code of Practice ensures the contracting chain is transparent and workers are informed of their rights.
Fair Wear has mounted a seven week campaign to get the message to Nike. Posters, Banners and other actions are informing consumers and reminding Nike that People come before profits.
You can help to pressure Nike by visiting http://www.stopthesweatshops.com
Please tell as many of your email pals as possible so that Nike is inundated with emails and faxes over the next few weeks.
However the mood was not all celebratory with the
by Mary Yaager
In future employers will be required to consult with employees to enable those employees to contribute to decisions about their health, safety and welfare. Employers who fail to consult with employees will face hefty fines of up to $55,000.
This is pathbreaking legislation and a first of its kind in Australia.
The changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act have come about as a result of the recommendations of a Parliamentary Inquiry into Workplace Safety. The unions put forward a submission to this Inquiry and were delighted to see that the majority of their recommendations were included in the final report. It was this report that provided the blue print for modernisation of the new Act.
The Minister for Industrial Relations, The Hon Jeff Shaw, stated: "The entire Occupational Health and Safety Act has been re-written in plain English and brought in line with modern occupational health and safety practices and designed to identify and eliminate risks and take into account the changing face of the workplace.
Jeff Shaw quote further "that the Government is dedicated to cutting the workplace death and injury toll. Approximately one worker is killed every two days in NSW and 58,000 are injured at an annual cost of nearly $1 billion.
The Government is also working towards modernising the existing regulations that underpin the new Act, to ensure they cover newly evolved workplaces such as call centres.
The new Act also provides for:
� More flexible consultative arrangements such as workplace occupational health and safety representatives who are elected by employees.
� Up to two years imprisonment for employers who blatantly disregard health and safety laws.
� Giving the court authority to order offenders to publicise their offence or to undertake projects to improve work safety.
� Giving victims or their families the opportunities to present victim impact statements.
� Power of the Industrial Commission as well as the Local Court to imprison offenders.
� Bringing the Industrial Commission in line with criminal jurisdictions by the adoption of sentencing guidelines.
� Clarification of the responsible Government agency for the purposes of prosecution.
The unions welcome the new legislation and congratulate the Minister on the initiative.
Keith McGukken, OHS Officer with the TWU, said the new legislation is a real breakthrough, as the majority of problems he currently encounters revolve around employers not wanting to consult with workers in relation to safety and he has to call on WorkCover on almost every occasion to get employers to discuss these issues.
Gerry Ayres, OHS Officer with the CFMEU, said that while his union welcomes the new changes he believes that they haven't' gone far enough and the Government should give OHS workplace representatives powers to issue Improvement Notices and Stop Work Notices.
Trish Butrej, OHS Officer with NSW Nurses' Association, looks forward to the new general duty to consult with employees about health and safety provisions. Also the greater number of mechanisms available will make it easy for Nurses, given the huge variety of work arrangements for Nurses, ranging from large hospitals to small community nursing services. Trish further stated that the ability for the judges to make community service orders is a positive step and gives benefit back to the community and workers.
Labor Council will be conducting a number of briefings on the changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act for unions and their delegates. For further details about these briefings, please contact Mary Yaager - or watch this space.
by Paul Howes
The "People's Walk for Reconciliation" was the main event of the "Corroboree 2000" Celebration, where the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation handed over to the Australian People the final document for Reconciliation.
However the mood was not all celebratory with the noticable absence of the Prime Minister John Howard who refused to attend the march and has constantly refused to apoligise to the Aboriginal people for over 200 years or oppression.
Today's Sydney Morning Herald editorial stated "At the Opera House Mr. Howard was jeered. On the bridge he was physically absent but on people's minds, as one so spritually out of touch as to have lost the claim of leadership."
The Unionists marching as with the majority of the people there where calling on the Prime Minister to say sorry. They were led by Labor Council of NSW Secretary Michael Costa and ACTU President Sharan Burrow.
Unions participating included the NSW Nurses Association, The NSW/ACT Independent Education Union, The Australian Services Union, The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, The Health and Research Employees Association, The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, The NSW Teachers Federation, the Community and Public Sector Union, the Finance Sector Union, The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, The Electrical Trades Union, The Maritime Union of Australia, The Australian Workers Union, The NSW Public Sector Association and the Trade Union Choir.
A modest man of unshakeable principle, Neil was a tireless fighter for workers' rights for over thirty years.
Neil joined the then Amalgamated Engineering Union in December 1967 when he worked as a fitter at the Government Aircraft Factory (GAF) at Port Melbourne in Victoria.
His understanding of the need for strong organisation among workers on the shop-floor was quickly recognised and he soon earned the trust of his workmates. Neil was elected as a shop steward and later became Secretary of the GAF Shop Committee.
By the mid-1970s, Neil was elected to the Victorian State Council of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. He was also a delegate to the AMWU National Conference representing the Victorian Branch. He was active in the planning and execution of the AMWU's shorter hours campaign of the time.
Neil remained at the GAF until his election as a Victorian Branch Organiser in February 1982.
As a State Organiser, Neil represented thousands of workers across Victoria in the metals and manufacturing industries. Neil played an important role in a number of union campaigns including the successful implementation of the 38 hour week and the fight for employer funded superannuation.
Neil's contribution and obvious capacity to carry out a wider role in the union were recognised in his election as a National Organiser in 1990.
As National Organiser, Neil took on responsibility for national union campaigns and organising in industries such as steel, food processing, construction and railways. In doing so Neil came up against hard nosed companies like BHP, Nestl�, Simplot and Australian National. Neil always understood that in dealing with these companies at multi-union sites, union solidarity was a neccessary ingredient for success. Neil forged strong working relationships with officials and members of all the unions representing workers in Neil's area of responsibility.
Neil was a worker representative on the board of the BHP Superannuation Fund. He held the firm belief that workers have a right to retire with dignity. It is a belief that he put into practice.
On the international front, Neil was an advocate of the need for international trade union action when dealing with large multinational corporations. Neil was a key Australian representative at the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF). The IUF provides the basis for international worker organisation in industries dominated by multinational corporations with a poor track record on workers rights around the world. Neil played an important role in assisting the development of worker organisation outside Australia, particularly among employees of the Swiss multinational Nestl�.
Neil recently represented Australian steelworkers at a series of rallies and a conference in Washington aimed at raising worker concerns over the recent decision of the Clinton administration to allow the admission of China to the World Trade Organisation.
Neil was a great friend to all of us at the AMWU, to rank and file members of the AMWU everywhere and to many workers around the world. He will be sadly missed by all of us.
We extend our deepest sympathy to Neil's family and friends. Our thoughts are with them. We share their loss and their grief.
Congratulations on the recent article written in support of the South Sydney Rabbitohs and their upcoming legal battle for re-instatement to the NRL.
Their fight is much more than a fight for a football team to play in a competition which in no small part owes its success to the deeds of this sporting icon over the last 90 or so years.
This is a fight about the rights of the average person not being trampled upon by grandstanding corporate juggernauts. It is a fight about the bottom line NOT being about squeezing every possible dollar from anything and everything.
It is many aspects the classic David Vs Goliath style stoush. While I have every confidence that as per the script the red and green adorned David will slay the Gucci clad Goliath it will not hurt David's chances if his union brothers come to the party with support - financial or otherwise. Donations to the Souths fighting fund, letters of protest to the NRL, boycotts of NRL sponsors products - any thing you can do to help the cause will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you again for ther article and your ongoing support of this worthy cause.
kind regards
John Harrison
Dear Comrade
I am writing in relation to the further attacks by Reith on the rights of workers.
As a rank and file member of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union I find it quite barbaric that this Government imposed even worse laws on workers in this country.
It is now more than ever that members of the community and other unionist around the county unite to put this Government back in it's rightful spot.
Could you please publish the following website as there is a link to the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union which has a online petition against Reith third wave. The address is:
http://www.vmore.org.au/~vicnorth
Yours In Unity
Gdog Gdog Gdo
The reason for the silence of most of the trade union movement is easy to understand: it is because the Australian Labor Party supports the introduction of the GST. While the current ALP leadership have a policy of 'rolling back' the GST's worst excesses, this still leaves the tax in place to be manipulated and increased whenever conservative governments -- either Liberal or Labor -- choose.
The ALP is using it's influence and control within the Australian trade union movement to marginalise opposition to the GST. The ACTU, for example, has NOT called for any public meetings or demonstrations against this ruthless example of corporate greed.
The alternative is a policy for real taxation reform in Ausralia, where companies actually pay some taxes. Naturally, this scares the pants off many ALP ministers and politicians who like the tax-free perks that go with owning companies.
Australia not only needs a new tax system, it also needs a political alternative to the one party state we currently live in, where the ALP and the Liberals alternate in attacking the living standards of working people and the trade union movement. Australia doesn't need a third political party: it needs a second political party.
by grandstanding corporate juggernauts. It is a fight about the bottom line NOT being about squeezing every possible dollar from anything and everything.
John McCusker
Dear Sir,
It is just great to see Australian Union Solidarity in action once again, in the interests of the Australian worker. I watch in amazement as the" COMRADES" from the 1950s' combine against the New World terror, that misguided indigenous Fijian Nationalist George Speight. (Methinks just an easy target) The new Gladiator of the Union Movement , Ms Sharon Burrow has threatened union blockades on Shipping, Airlines, Mail and Financial services.
What an absolute "Disgrace". Ms Burrow "Who do you think this reactionary terror , AND DECLARATION OF ECONOMIC WAR ,against the small nation of Fiji , as advocated by you will affect?", Certainly not those that are in power , it will only affect the already poverty stricken indigenous Fijian "
While in no way endorsing the direct action of George Speight , I would suggest that there is much more to this problem of disenfranchisement than which has been glibly referred to as a simple problem of racism. A word used as a cudgel by left wing ragbags, with which to king hit their opponents , to such an extent , that it has almost lost any meaning.
One must at least attempt to view the situation from the perspective of these passive people. (The indigenous Fijian)
The invasion by Indian workers of their land, Fiji, would be no different from the alleged forced population of Australia by the then British Colonial power, and as such, these powers should now accept responsibility for their actions. This responsibility should encompass the repatriation (to their country of origin) of those who have no allegiance with this once Garden of Eden," Fiji". Australia through its involvement via CSR, should also accept responsibility for its part in this unfortunate consequence of careless commercial ventures, and offer to make amends by paying for the repatriation to their respective countries of origin.
To Ms Burrow and the rapidly shrinking Comrades in the Union Movement, what is the difference between the battle for sovereignty for Australian Aborigines whom you support, and the unfortunate plight of the Indigenous Fijians who not only perceive themselves as strangers in their own land, but have in fact been alienated from control of their own destiny?
So Comrades before you vent the bile of your own frustrations, on the people of Fiji !
How about a mile in their shoes?
Tom Collins
by Peter Lewis
You are at the end of what has been a long dispute. What has been the main advances that have come out of it for teachers in NSW
The dispute has not just been the usual stoush between teachers, government and the Department over salaries. What has made this dispute so much more bitter than previous disputes has been that this dispute has also been about the role of the Teachers Federation and whether the Teachers Federation should have a role in education decision making and educational change.
Now, there have certainly been some people in the Government and the Department who have just wanted the Federation removed from having any say over educational policy. They tried to destroy the Federation during this dispute. And that explains in many ways the hard line that was taken - of not talking to the Federation for such a long time; the personal attacks on the Federation leadership.
Despite this the Federation has ensured that it remains a player in education. We have managed to keep at bay an agenda to deregulate teachers' working conditions. It's an agenda that is very much a Coalition-style agenda of trying to remove a union like the Teachers Federation from the equation. But they have failed, the members have remained united throughout this very long dispute when there were attacks on them, and certainly attempts to divide the membership from one another.
Did it surprise you that this attitude came from a Labor Government, and particularly the Education Minister, who had a background in teaching?
It didn't surprise me. The Premier made it quite clear following the last election, when he gained quite a large majority, that he was attempting to re-position the ALP in NSW. He was wanting to reduce the influence of the union movement on the ALP and transform it into a Party that appeals more to the aspirational classes.
The Government was, from the information we have, very upset and annoyed at the Teachers Federation having a twenty-four hour strike in the period before the election in March 1999. The Government runs a populist line and has relied on polling that has shown that whenever they take on teachers their popularity increases. We are also are not affiliated to the ALP. We pay a price for our independence.
The disappointing side of it is that the Premier does take education seriously. He claims to be an "Education Premier". But unfortunately for teachers the Premier has outmoded, old fashioned views and it is inevitable that we come into conflict.
You're say the Premier at the moment is old fashioned and conservative on education?
He is certainly very much a traditionalist. The comments that he has made publicly show support for a traditional curriculum. Now, there is nothing wrong with History being taught in schools and an emphasis on grammar, teaching spelling properly and the importance of knowing facts. Teachers feel they do this. The Premier is appealing to those people in the community who thinks that standards have declined. There are a lot of new things happening in education and teachers would certainly prefer it that more support was given to the tremendous change that is occurring rather than reinforcing a basic education. Teachers often feel insulted because they are already teaching spelling and grammar. But they're doing so much more than that.
The other thing about the government's handling of the dispute was they were working hand in hand with the Telegraph to run quite a vicious campaign against the Federation. Did you learn anything about the way that the media operates and particularly about the way this media operates with the government?
It shocked teachers but in this job you have to have an understanding of the environment in which you are operating. In NSW the number of people who actually have power to make decisions is very few. So you have a few powerful people in the Government and those people go and lunch with the editors of newspapers. So you certainly don't believe that there is editorial independence in the newspapers. Teachers have come to accept that editorial writers in both the Telegraph and the Herald get things terribly confused. Teachers realise they form a large occupational group. The Teachers Federation is a large union and a union that has power, so we are fair game for the newspaper editorialists and the headline writers.
When you are going into a salaries dispute that you certainly want to do your best to maintain a reasonable opinion by the public. You know that it is always going to be hard because teachers are such a large occupational group, because teachers' salaries are a large proportion of the education budget and there is a flow on to the private schools. What has been different this time has been the nature of the attacks. But then that in part reflects the fact that it's a dispute that went on for such a long time, and it wasn't just about salaries. The Government was very much in the game of trying to prove they run public education not the Teachers Federation. Now, the Teachers Federation is not seeking to run public education, but is wanting to remain a player.
So, I am not surprised at what the newspapers do, and given the level of industrial action, it was to be expected. I think what is disappointing is that we don't have the range of newspaper ownership that can subject to criticism the actions of the Government, but then they are also much more secretive in the way in which they make their decisions.
On the day of the February 9th strike before the last state election there was a photo of me with the Dunce's cap on the front page. What was quite an interesting footnote to this dispute, was when Maralyn Parker in the Telegraph put the Dunce's cap on John Aquilina, and the information we had was that he was not particularly pleased about that. So, the Telegraph can certainly have its front pages but there is some interesting reflective comment nevertheless in some of their columns that certainly one would have hoped forced the Government and the Department - or some people in the Government and the Department to change what they were doing.
One of the criticisms of the teachers throughout the dispute was that the leadership had basically reached agreement but they couldn't carry through their Executive. There was that line coming through that the Teachers Federation suffers from an excess of democracy. How do you respond to those sort of comments?
Well, certainly compared to many other organisations, we are very democratic. If you compare us to the government - we don't know what happens in the Cabinet; we don't get Cabinet papers. With the Department, we don't know what happens with their Senior Executive Service - we don't get those papers.
Certainly there are advantages and disadvantages of democracy. On the one hand by reporting regularly to our members and by members directly, or indirectly, participating in the decisions, the membership has remained united through this long campaign. Certainly there are disadvantages - you can't always make decisions as quickly as you would like, and you always know too that everything that you say can be put in the public arena. The advantage that the Government and the Department have had at various times is that they have been able to proceed by stealth and to use the element of surprise. But if you have a strike, well people have got to vote for it.
So, on the one hand you can lose a tactical advantage by being so open. But on the other hand, you have that great tactical advantage that your negotiators are going in there from a position of strength because your members are behind you.
Is there anything you would have done differently during the dispute, looking back on it?
One of the advantages of democracy is that you can have a great deal of debate about what your various tactics are. One of the debates that occurred early on was about how much do you spend in industrial action, trying to get an offer from the government, as opposed to when you have got the offer, using your industrial action to maximise your negotiating position. So certainly we found with this dispute, that strike action was used just to get decent negotiations. There is the spectre of an enormous amount of industrial action yet, when it actually came down to have fair dinkum negotiations, it didn't take all that long to get where we were.
It took about three months of negotiations. When you look at what the Government and the Department were wanting to do in terms of a total deregulatory agenda, to spend some three months negotiating to maintain teachers' hours, to maintain teachers having some control over the span of hours they work and be able to get a Treasury funded salary increase, that all has been some achievement. It happened comparatively quickly.
I think at any one stage we could have made decisions to do things in different ways. Within a democracy the majority has the say and that's the way you go. I'm sure the other side knows that perhaps they should have done things a little differently.
So where should the educational debate head now?
With the salaries dispute over what we have to be looking at is where public education is going. What has happened over the last ten years is that governments, whether they are Federal governments or State governments haven't been treating public education as their prime responsibility. They have been responding more to the views of the aspirational class; trying to encourage choice in schooling. But that choice in schooling is coming at the expense of public education. It's creating a crisis of confidence in public education.
The other issue that we have to come to grips with is the matter of standards in teaching. That comes to the question of the profession's control over curriculum content and the question of what constitutes the skills and experience that a competent teacher should have.
Now, unfortunately attempts to get a teacher registration board here in NSW got scuttled, because the Premier, when he launched that, saw it as a means of getting rid of dud teachers. But the teaching profession really needs to be able to regain some control over its practices; be seen by the public to have clearly defined standards. And the profession needs to know that its high standards come from what it considers to be good professional practice.
Finally, as we see more stories of people shifting from public to private education, are you optimistic about the future of public education?
The figures of the continuing shift to private schools is enormously worrying and I don't think anybody can be optimistic about the future of public education. The figures are showing that it is not just a drift of students in the senior years of school, or of high school, but it is also occurring in the primary school area. I'm certainly feeling pessimistic in that this is being encouraged by government funding, but it also says something about Australian society that egalitarian principles and the notion that you go to your local public school where you mix with all kids are going by the wayside for the "aspirational" class. Parents want to do the best thing for their kids, they also want to be seen as successes. Unfortunately that is being increasingly judged by whether you can send your kids to a private school.
Parents in this day and age are feeling that they want their children to mix with a narrower group of people. They feel that that protects their children. The sense of local community is being lost as parents are prepared to have their kids travel distances to mix in an environment that they believe they have greater control over - to protect their kids from so called undesirable influences.
So it is depressing that people are walking away from what the Teachers Federation and organisations like the Parents and Citizens have seen as an institution that's been fundamental to Australian democracy towards a society based on mixing with a narrow group. People are living in fear of one another. And there is a view of well, you get something better if you pay for it.
It is a great honour for me to be here tonight to deliver the inaugural Fraser Lecture.
As you all know Jim Fraser, after whom this electorate and indeed this lecture is named, was the member for Canberra from 1951 until 1972. It was not until 1966 that he won full voting rights in the House of Representatives. For all that time he played the role of mayor, ombudsman, State and Federal MP for his huge electorate. Jim was just as much at home discussing leaking water meters as he was speaking on the big issues of the day.
Jim was the quintessential Labor member of Parliament. Many people have come to see Canberra and its environs as a Labor enclave, yet in the Menzies years the government was very popular with its employees. Jim had to work hard to make this a Labor-voting area, and we will always be grateful to him for achieving that with his tireless local efforts.
One of the things I remember about him was the enormous number of people who came to say goodbye to him at his funeral just down the hill from Parliament House. They were spilling out of all the doors.
This was a big man in all sorts of ways. A man who appealed to people from all walks of life, from all sides of politics -- a man Gough Whitlam called a friend -- an unaffected and accessible spokesman, mediator, and advocate for all those he represented.
Jim served for many years as the local vice-president of the Australian Journalists' Association. As a good union man he would have had no patience with the narrow ideology that governs industrial relations under John Howard and Peter Reith.
In a modern democracy the way industrial relations are played out is a sure test of the character and effectiveness of Government. And I want to focus this inaugural Fraser lecture tonight on industrial relations because of the impact bad policy has on the way Australian workers and their families live.
Many observers would have been surprised to hear Peter Reith tell a recent meeting of the NSW Industrial Relations Society how well off workers and the community were because of his policies.
These were his descriptions of the experiences of Australian workers today: "...more cooperative workplaces with greater workforce participation in wage and condition setting"; "...more flexible conditions enabling work and family issues to be addressed"; rewards "more readily shared throughout the workforce".
Most of us would have had a lot of trouble recognising this workers' paradise.
And this whitewash came from the lips of Peter Reith -- the man whose industrial regime is characterised by men in balaclavas leading attack dogs against waterfront workers.
This is the Reith regime - where the state of workplace relations was described recently by a Victorian Supreme Court judge as "ritualised mayhem in which only the innocent are slaughtered".
This is the place where industry research shows such a sharp erosion in loyalty between boss and workers, that young people entering the workplace had never experienced it - they have never experienced job security and job loyalty.
This is a regime Mr Reith describes as "responsible public policy making". All the evidence, though, shows that he is the most divisive and untrustworthy minister the portfolio has had for as long as most of us can remember.
And he is making industrial relations in this country over in his image - confrontational, bullying, aggressive.
In the Australian way, the Minister for Industrial Relations should be the one who -- along with the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission -- is responsible for fairness in the workplace.
Mr Reith has simply shrugged off this responsibility, and through a series of measures in the Parliament he has made sure that the umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, has been stripped of its ability to deliver fairness.
Peter Reith has been handed his confrontational brief by the Prime Minister who told Parliament in 1992, when asked about the coalition's plans for the Commission, that: "We will stab them in the stomach".
This is what he told the Parliament in Opposition - he was quite upfront about it in June 1992 - he wouldn't come around and stab the Commission in the back, he would tackle them head-on and "stab them in the stomach".
And this is the message John Howard handed to Peter Reith on winning Government in 1996 - a message couched in the language of violence and confrontation.
Is it any wonder that people on both sides of politics are telling us that a strong umpire is needed today as never before? As workplace changes come thick and fast, the Commission's role should be expanded, not eroded, as has happened under Peter Reith.
The smooth operation of industrial relations is a vital part of national welfare. We all know this. Happiness in the workplace is fundamental to happiness in families. Family-friendly industrial relations are fundamental to a whole and peaceful society.
These issues are too important to be handed to a wrecker like Peter Reith.
You should have a look through his website sometime - it makes amazing reading. It's worth making your way through all the misspellings and tortured syntax -to get to the nub of the Reith agenda.
Is this Federal minister interested in how to achieve fairness in labour relations in the new economy? Is he interested in balancing productivity increases and workers' rights under globalisation? What about the new challenges of trying to win Australia a future as a Knowledge Nation in the new industrial revolution the world is experiencing?
It's all too hard for Peter Reith. His press releases tell the tired old story of divisiveness and union bashing. The headlines scream: "Labor's Payback to its Union Masters"; "Beazley Should Stop Third ACTU President"; "Union Control of Labor"; "The Unions Are Now Running Policy in Victoria - Again".
Peter Reith's first formal speech as Minister was spent attacking unions, and there has been a strict consistency in his views ever since. "Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we're on," he said during the recent election campaign. He told a newspaper: "people have just got to stand up to unions and we will support them. All you have to do is pick up the phone and we will support you".
Some ministers with more subtlety might have gilded the lily a little - arguing for balance or the middle way. Not Partisan Pete.
You know, the best character analysis of Peter Reith I have ever read was actually written about 50 years ago, by George Orwell, in the famous novel "Animal Farm".
He introduces one of the farmyard animals as follows:
"The best known among them was a pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movements, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker and, when he was arguing some difficult point, he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white."
You might remember Peter Reith's legislation called "More Jobs, Better Pay" last year. You'd need a good memory, because of its demise in the Senate. But if the name of that particular legislation wasn't a case of turning black into white, I don't know what is.
And let's be quite clear about the people Peter Reith sees as the enemy - workers covered by trade unions. About two million workers in all walks of life - nurses, transport workers, teachers, miners, shearers, factory employees -- people who have put the backbone into the economic development of this great nation.
There are many others who may not belong to unions but who are sympathetic to workers' rights to associate, their rights to better safety conditions, their rights to bargain for a fair deal and for some semblance of job security. The Australian workers endorse a strong basic award system, underpinning their working arrangements.
Mr Reith's attack on these people shows he has no interest in industrial harmony. In his own words, he will never forget whose side he is on.
Of course nothing shows us more clearly how far he will go to advantage what he perceives to be his side -- how far he will bend the law and the truth -- than his handling of the waterfront dispute - one of the most bitter and divisive conflicts in Australia's history.
For the first time in Australia a Government set out to create a massive dispute in order to get a mass sacking of workers.
Have no doubts that it was orchestrated at the highest levels of Government. A leaked internal Government document from early 1997 shows a ruthless campaign to smash a union.
The Government document - signed off personally by the Prime Minister -- has the most chilling of tones. Cold, calculated, it puts paid to any sense that the Government was acting in the interests of all Australians as it has claimed.
In the document entitled Waterfront Strategy, which I commend as a fascinating insight into the Government's attitude to unions, the following lines appear:
"The courts and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission cannot always be relied upon to act in a decisive and timely manner against the union."
"It would be preferable for a major dispute to be one for which the Government has planned in accordance with our own timetable."
"A key part of the interventionist strategy is that the MUA [Maritime Union of Australia] should be caught by surprise. To this end it may be quite appropriate to keep the unions wondering whether the Government would settle for an evolutionary approach."
This was the Howard Government's way of showing which side it was on.
This was supposed to have been the big bang to deliver huge changes on the waterfront. And yet after all the divisiveness, the secrecy, the lies, we now discover just what a damp squib the outcome has been.
Figures released last month showed that crane rates in Australia's ports in the last quarter had fallen to near the levels they were before the 1998 dispute.
It is a lesson the blinkered members of the Howard Government just never seem to learn - the politics of confrontation and ideology achieve nothing.
The industrial relations system under Labor was based on cooperation, and it was aimed at boosting industrial productivity and economic progress with fairness.
The introduction of enterprise bargaining under Labor played a central part in our strategy for modernising Australian industry.
The changes we made, especially in our final five years in office, were part of a continuous process of reform.
As the record shows, economic performance especially during the last five years of the Labor Government was impressive. Between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s, exports as a share of GDP nearly doubled. Between the 1993 and 1996 Federal elections, 670,000 new jobs were created. In 1994-95 growth in manufacturing production reached an historical peak.
In the first half of the 1990s the increase in productivity in Australia was much faster than the OECD average, and was faster than Australia had seen for thirty years. All this was achieved in an atmosphere of unprecedented industrial peace.
What has happened since then has gone a long way towards destroying the cooperation and harmony that used to obtain in the industrial system and, in doing so, threatens our industrial progress.
There is no doubt that the waterfront dispute -- masked men and attack dogs chasing people out of their place of work -- must have come as a great shock to working people and their families everywhere.
This is the inevitable result when governments toss out the rules, emasculate the independent umpire, and sit back to allow guerrilla warfare through the courts to determine who will win and lose in the workplace.
Strikes have increased across Australia in 1999, the second consecutive year of increase, after a long period of decline. Intractable strikes are on the increase, with all the bitterness they leave in their wake.
Industrial action by employers has become more vicious. G&K O'Connor's Meatworks in country Victoria -- in an action labelled a "baseball bat lockout" by Justice Spender of the Federal Court -- locked out its employees for eight months because they refused to accept pay cuts ranging up to 17.5 percent.
ACI in Melbourne locked out its employees on Christmas Eve last year and kept them out for five months.
Certainly, nobody should have been shocked when a national study of workers' attitudes carried out for the Australian Industry Group discovered a workplace environment in which the values of cooperation had been driven out by the raw drive to survive. "Employees have never competed so ruthlessly against each other for jobs and money," the study reported. "Loyalty between employer and employee is being eroded across the board and many young people don't experience it."
The sense of insecurity among workers is great and growing. It can be found not only in the AIG study that I have just quoted but also in the surveys done regularly by the Roy Morgan organisation and -- most notably because the canvass was so broad -- for the ACTU by Yann Campbell Hoare Wheeler.
Peter Reith has overseen a system to which an incoming government will have to make significant change if Australia is to have an economy and industries fit for the challenges posed by the new century.
In the highly-skilled, well-paid Knowledge Nation that the Labor Party wants for Australia, the industrial relations policies for encouraging productivity, developing skills and promoting safe and healthy workplaces, must also include policies for nurturing workplace cohesion and cooperation
Some of the elements of what the Labor Party has in mind for industrial relations are already well known. Other elements are not as well known, or not well understood. We start with three basic points.
Firstly, we will restore the powers of the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, so that it can bring back fairness in the workplace, act in the public interest, and keep the industrial peace.
Secondly, it is essential, especially as arbitration gives way to bargaining, that the law require all parties to negotiate in good faith. Our law will support the primacy of -- and we will give precedence to -- collective forms of bargaining. But it will insist on good faith bargaining, whatever bargaining options are preferred.
Thirdly, our law will recognise that the right of employees to act, organise and protect themselves collectively is a fundamental element of justice in the workplace.
The role of the independent umpire has been under threat from Peter Reith since John Hewson's Fightback of the early 1990s.
In his 1996 laws, Mr Reith transferred jurisdiction over matters including the conduct of industrial action from the Commission to the Federal Court, in spite of its inexperience in this field.
But Mr Reith has been disappointed. The Federal Court has refused to be one of his poodles. Perhaps 'Squealer' is not as persuasive as he likes to think. He has been forced to cast around for alternatives.
He next tried to force coverage of industrial relations matters onto the new Federal Magistrates' Court, which was supposed to deal with the overflow of matters from the Family Court. Twice, the Government tried to add industrial relations to the authority of the new court. Twice, the Parliament stopped it.
His next plan, now in legislation before the Parliament aimed at preventing so-called pattern bargaining, would extend jurisdiction over the conduct of 'protected action' from the Federal Court to State and Territory courts - anywhere, of course, but where it should belong - the Industrial Relations Commission.
Peter Reith said on May 22 that the legislation proposes more, not less, power to the Commission relating to industrial action. It does nothing of the kind. What it actually proposes is to put limits on protected action and then direct the Commission not only to police these limits but also to do so within a very limited timetable.
One of the most revealing examples of Peter Reith's contempt for the Commission is the proposal in his pattern bargaining Bill that it: "must have particular regard to the views of the employer who is a negotiating party to the agreement". In other words, no attempt to ensure a balance between the parties, just a totally partisan game.
Peter Reith has been nobbling the Commission since 1996. Firstly he legislated to restrict the Commission's power to arbitrate and, in doing so, its capacity to conciliate. He restricted the Commission's power to make awards. He has limited its capacity to prevent and settle disputes.
Instead, the courts have become the arena for settling industrial disputes. This has placed huge financial burdens on working people in trying to achieve justice.
The Hunter Valley Number One coal mining dispute has been dragging on for years while lawyers are carrying out complicated and expensive manoeuvres to deny employees access to what is left of the arbitration powers of the Commission.
The waterfront dispute -- with all its implications for the national economy -- had to wend its way through the Federal Court and up to the High Court before it could be settled.
The Commission has had to cope with a stream of morale-sapping criticism whenever it tried to act independently as a fair umpire.
Labor is committed to an industrial relations system that aids the participants to come to agreement. The Commission - as the independent umpire - must have the power to resolve disputes.
The Labor Party will take action now to seek to give the Commission the power to restore the balance, keep the peace and protect the interest of the community in workplace issues. We will do it in two ways. We will be moving amendments to this effect in Parliament to Peter Reith's "pattern bargaining" Bill which we oppose. And we will be moving Private Member's legislation as well.
We will seek to ensure that, among the principal objects of the legislation which governs industrial relations, the Commission will have the power to conciliate when bargaining gets bogged down and, where necessary, to arbitrate.
We will seek to give the Commission the power to ensure that parties negotiate in good faith. It would be able, for example, to consider their conduct: whether or not they have behaved reasonably, failed to negotiate or prevented others from reaching agreements.
We will seek to give the Commission power to arbitrate decisions if it can see that disagreements have become intractable, and we will attempt to enable the Commission to make or vary awards in order to resolve disputes.
Another of the issues I want to talk about this evening is Peter Reith's Australian Workplace Agreements - the AWAs that we plan to abolish.
It is important to know the history of AWAs. They are Peter Reith's invention and, like all his workplace ideas, they have a partisan purpose.
I was prepared to consider whether or not there was a way they could be civilised. As late as last December I told the ACTU that we were prepared to look at these agreements in the light of the Beattie Government reforms to the Queensland version of AWAs. I have been consistently sceptical about them, but I had kept an open mind. Now, however, the overpowering weight of evidence, State and Federal, confirms my scepticism.
The Office of the Employment Advocate told a Senate committee earlier this month that only about 90,000 workers are currently covered by AWAs. Of these, nearly 28,000 are in the public sector and a little more than 62,000 in the private sector. Roughly 10,000 AWAs were forced on Victorian public servants by the Kennett Government, and 6,000 or so were forced by Peter Reith on Commonwealth public servants.
Our analysis, allowing for such factors as labour turnover, suggests that the total AWA coverage could be a little less than 79,000 - this is less than one percent of the workforce. There is no doubt that these agreements have not exactly swept the popular imagination. They fall a long way short of the 10 percent of the workforce originally proposed by their advocates.
The Labor Party opposed AWAs when they were introduced. We have always been against Peter Reith's insistence that these agreements should be exempt from scrutiny by the independent umpire.
We were worried they could be unfair, or used to undercut other workers. The National Institute of Labour Studies reported in 1997 that 93.5% of those who signed up to AWAs did so without being represented by a bargaining agent. It found that individual employees felt restricted in their ability to consult unions.
A study by the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training (ACIRRT) of AWAs negotiated in Queensland before the Beattie Government came into office found that, compared to collective agreements, they lacked innovative work flexibility arrangements, contained fewer provisions for employment conditions, and provided no significant improvements in conditions.
In WA, these individual agreements were found to fall well short of collective agreements in terms of wage increases, casual employment conditions, workplace flexibility, hours of work and absorption of allowances.
The latest ACIRRT Report finds that, on the basis of enforceable rights contained in 5,000 agreements, wage rates for those covered by AWAs are more likely to be lower than under union agreements. "Non-union collective agreements provided for the lowest average annual wage increases (3.1%), followed by AWAs (3.3%) and union agreements (4.4%)".
Similar trends were evident when examining other employment conditions such as hours of work, training, employee input and consultation. Significant changes to hours of work provisions seem to be the main area of focus for AWAs and non-union agreements.
A Senate inquiry has found that women, workers juggling work, family and social obligations, young workers, and people from non English-speaking backgrounds were particularly disadvantaged by AWAs.
According to their advocates, one of the principal benefits of AWAs is that they allowed individual bargaining between employer and employee to introduce more flexibility into individual workers' employment conditions.
In practice, this is a myth. Far from being individual contracts, AWAs have generally been used by employers as just another form of collective bargain. AWAs have generally been introduced to impose uniform working conditions across workplaces --- but with significantly reduced rights for working people.
For example, in Victoria, there are only 12 different variations on the AWAs enforced by former Premier Jeff Kennett on 10,000 State public servants. And I am personally aware of AWAs being offered to all members of the one workforce that offer precisely the same terms and conditions. These are not individual bargains; they are collective deals imposed on the workforce by the employer.
The Senate inquiry was given many examples of jobs offered on an AWA-only basis. One was the Sydney restaurant, Blackbird Caf�, that Peter Reith chose last year to celebrate the 50,000th AWA. He probably has not been told yet that the restaurant dropped its AWA policy and has opted instead for a collective agreement.
The development that we found most valuable as we considered our view on AWAs was the experience of Queensland Workplace Agreements (QWAs) introduced by the Borbidge Government in 1997, modelled very closely on the AWAs.
In 1998, the incoming Beattie Government conducted an inquiry into the Borbidge agreements. This showed that the QWAs tended to provide for low pay, to reduce award conditions, and not to come about as a result of genuine negotiation.
The Beattie Government therefore amended the legislation. Employers can no longer make QWAs with juniors. The secrecy provisions for QWAs have been removed, opening them to public scrutiny.
Most importantly, the State Commission is now required to ensure that QWAs are not contrary to the public interest, and, when it considers the public interest, it may consider the relative bargaining power and the particular circumstances and needs of low-paid workers, women, young people, outworkers, apprentices and trainees.
There have been two interesting results from the Queensland experience. One is that QWAs -- as distinct from AWAs elsewhere -- are now fairer, more openly and fairly negotiated and more responsive to the public interest.
The other result is that, since they have been improved in this way, they have virtually fallen into disuse. Under Borbidge, an average of 282 new QWAs were agreed per quarter. Under Beattie, the average has dropped to 16. In other words, the fairer QWAs are, the less attractive they are to employers.
AWAs are not only not attractive; they are not even cost-effective . The Employment Advocate himself admitted that the low take-up of AWAs could have been due to their high transaction costs. The Australian Mines and Metals Association reported that members were complaining about the procedural complexities, and delays in registration and approval.
Even the Australian Council of Commerce and Industry (normally such Reith loyalists) seemed quite agitated about the "significant resources" involved, the "onerous", "convoluted", "disturbing", "bureaucratic" and "cumbersome" nature of the process.
We have costed these AWAs at about $500 each, taking into account work hours in their handling. This compares with around $22 for each worker covered under the collective agreements covered by the Industrial Relations Commission.
So what do we have here?
An expensive and complicated process with a $45 million bureaucracy to run it but which applies to less than 1% of the workforce.
A secret, unreviewable form of agreement reached between the employer and individual employees which has been shown in very many cases (if not most cases) to be unfair and less favourable in pay and conditions than collective agreements.
Peter Reith's system of AWAs will go, as we promised in our policy at the last election. In the same way, the expensive Office for the Employment Advocate will also go.
I said earlier that we had been keeping open the possibility of replacing Peter Reith's AWAs with a modified form of statutory agreement. As late as December last year I said that we looked forward with great interest to see how Queensland's modified version of statutory individual contracts worked, to see if it could provide us with a model to modify Federal AWAs.
Well, we now know the results of the Queensland experiment. The Queensland Industrial Relations Minister Paul Braddy said only last month that the Queensland version of AWAs had been "a monumental flop". An independent report into these agreements found they were unpopular and had been virtually ignored by employers and workers.
Now that we know what the Queensland experience has been, (they cover only 0.2 percent of the Queensland workforce), we have come to the conclusion that there is no point in seeking to replace the Reith AWAs with a modified form of a statutory individual contract.
In Labor's policy, employees who prefer an individual agreement will be still be able to use common law contracts, as workers have done for the past couple of hundred years. The irony of all this is that common law contracts are still far more than popular than Mr Reith's AWAs .
There are bigger issues to concern us in industrial relations.
Our workforce is now more atomised and casualised than at any time in our history. We have the second highest level of casual employment in the developed world. We are working longer hours than we were a generation ago.
Employment itself is being contained in ghettos of good fortune, whole areas of the nation being turned into no-work zones. Work processes and technology are changing at an enormous pace. The level of anxiety and insecurity among Australian workers is around the highest it has ever been in peacetime. We have a disorganised and underfunded training system.
When we consider questions like these, we realise just how narrow-minded the industrial world view is of this Government and its Minister.
Just as on so many other issues, like tax and privatisation, Peter Reith and John Howard are mired in the industrial relations debate of past times.
The debate used to be: confrontation versus cooperation; or arbitration versus bargaining; or collective versus individual. The new industrial relations debate has advanced beyond this. In a Knowledge Nation the central focus of industrial relations must be to create cooperative, consensual workplaces with a better-educated, better trained workforce.
This is the way the Knowledge Nation generates greater productivity.
So not only is it good social policy to have a fairer, more cooperative workplace, there can be no doubt it is good economic policy as well.
But this Government just doesn't get it. And in truth, it is not all Peter Reith's fault. It's John Howard who is really to blame. He just doesn't get cooperative industrial relations. Just like he doesn't get reconciliation. Or the republic. Or a tax policy that's fair on families.
On all of these issues, as on industrial relations policy, John Howard and his Government have a fatal flaw: : they are in love with the past and at war with the the future.
With Labor, fairness will be restored, along with a central role for the independent umpire.
That's the Labor way.
by Andrew Casey
Mr and Mrs Crelley, have between them worked as cleaners at HMAS Creswell, just outside of Nowra, for nearly twenty years.
SERCO - which last year increased its profits by 18.8 per cent - has just won a $151 million Australian Defence forces contract to provide security, catering, barracks management, ground maintenance, cleaning, garbage removal, laundry etc etc.
So SERCO's now got the contract to 'manage' Allan and Beverley's jobs at the Navy Base.
That's why the couple have been told to reapply to keep their own jobs.
They applied. And then got a letter telling them they were sacked.
Mrs Crelley is just bitter about the lack of courtesy and respect she has been shown after all these years.
"They didn't have the guts to tell us to our face, they just posted a letter," she said.
It is this rudeness to the locals that has got many people upset.
And that's why there is talk of a community campaign involving local businesses, churches, community groups and unions to tell the multinational to learn some manners.
The local community has got the courage to make this a big issue, Bryan Smith, the regional organiser for the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU), reckons.
" It is a tough issue but the community knows that these jobs are needed and they have the courage to tell a London mob that Nowra has got guts," Bryan said.
There are already plans for picketing to be put into place starting June 19 at HMAS Albatross.
A community meeting has been called for this Tuesday night at Bombaderry RSL Club.
But the company today moved to undermine the importance of that meeting.
They have sent out job offer notices which state that if you want their job you have to agree in writing, by Monday, and you must accept an individual employment contract - one of Peter Reith's hated Australian Workplace Agreement
For Allan Crelley who, along with his wife, is an LHMU member, the issue is about his whole way of life: "Now tell me what future have we got now this job's been taken off us. I am 59 and the wife's 53. There's no future at all*and the company was so rude about it."
After twelve years working at the Base as a permanent employee he brings home $778 a fortnight. Now he says he - and his wife - are facing life on the dole.
The company will start 'managing'; the jobs at the two Navy Bases on June 19 at HMAS Albatross and June 23 at HMAS Cresswell, and that's when Mr and Mrs Crelley lose their jobs.
For SERCO, and Mr Beetson, the SERCO Chief Executive based in London, the Australian Defence Contract - which includes HMAS Albatross and HMAS Cresswell - means more money for their very profitable bottom line.
For the community of Nowra - population 25,000 - it means hundreds of local jobs lost ( both directly and in-directly) and a huge impact on the region's economy.
It is a blow that this regional centre will find hard to take, its local levels of unemployment have been on the rise for a while. Now at nearly 12 percent it is one of the highest in the State.
The two Navy bases have traditionally been one of the big employers in the region.
In its annual report SERCO boasts that it is a 'task management contractor to government and industry providing comprehensive support services across a wide range of applications'.
Translated into ordinary people's lingo it means the company wins big dollar contracts and makes profits by getting rid of people - and sharply cutting the pay and conditions of the people who still have a job.
Commuters using the Adelaide bus system have been almost in shock since SERCO, and others, took over some of the privatised bus services in April this year.
More than half the bus drivers lost their jobs when the public transport system was privatised.
The local papers are running shock horror stories about timetable grumbles 'cause the new privatised buses not turning up on time.
SERCO has taken over the job of managing an Atomic Weapons Establishment in the UK*and, guess what, its been announced that 1400 jobs would be cut. A third of the workforce.
It is the same strategy that is about to be used in Nowra with HMAS Albatross and HMAS Cresswell, down the road in Jervis Bay.
SERCO wants to offer only 15 per cent of the existing workforce any kind of job.
They have told the lucky few to forget the security of the Defence Contractors Award which now puts a floor under their working conditions and wages.
Those who want a job have to accept the individual employment contracts on offer, or they don't have a job.
And the job on offer for the 'lucky' workers will not be permanent. Most will only be getting casual and part-time work.
Bryan Smith, the local union organiser from Beverley and Allan Crelley's union - the LHMU - is flabbergasted. " The truth is they are being made to sign under duress."
The union has started to heavily lobby the local Liberal Federal MP, Mrs Joanna Gash.
" Joanna Gash holds one of the Howard Government's most marginal seats. We will remind her that if hundreds of people lose local jobs they, and their families, will be very angry voters at the next election," Bryan Smith said.
" John Howard says he wants to support jobs in regional Australia. Mrs Gash should explain how this action, to do away with our jobs, supports regional Australia."
Mrs Gash knows that the Federal Opposition is ready to campaign on this issue in her electorate because it is one of the electorates they think they can win.
Laurie Ferguson, the Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, has already circulated to the local media a statement claiming that the tendering out of the jobs to SERCO at the South Coast Navy Bases were part of a pattern of mismanagement.
" When contracts for support services are transferred from the public to the private sector this must NOT be at the expense of regional jobs, or of hard-won employment conditions for existing staff," Laurie Ferguson said.
Allan Crelley says there is a lot of fight in the local community over this issue.
" The news is only just getting around and no one wants to accept what's on offer. I think we'll get a big crowd at the Bombaderry RSL Club next Tuesday night," Allan said.
Last Wednesday there was a huge crowd at the gates of HMAS Albatross when SERCO advertised an information session about the few jobs that will be available when they take over in a few weeks time.
SERCO was offering jobs only to those people prepared to accept one of Peter Reith's Australian Workplace Agreements - and the agreement on offer was way below what the current Defence Contractors Award stipulates.
The crowd at HMAS Albatross weren't lining up for a job with SERCO.
They were there to protest the fact that more than 150 people were about to lose work because of SERCO.
The South Coast Labor Council's vice-president, Andrew Whilley, addressed the rally and laughed at the promise of Peter Reith that his Australian Workplace Agreements would be able to protect workers from sub-standard wages and conditions.
The decision by SERCO to force workers onto individual employment contracts instead of collective agreements could yet become a major national issue to be played out in the voting booths of Mrs Gash's marginal electorate of Gilmore.
On the same day that SERCO held its information session offering jobs only to people prepared to accept individual employment contracts, known as Australian Workplace Agreements, the Federal Labor Leader, Kim Beazley, announced that under a future Beazley Government AWAs will be abolished.
by Lucy Taksa
The following extracts are taken from The Railroad, which was produced by the Australian Railways Union and the Eveleigh News, which was produced by the Eveleigh shop committee.
The Railroad, 8 March 1938
Lecture by Aboriginal Members Invited to Hear the Story of our Coloured Comrade's Exploitation [letter] from School of Modern Writers, PO Chambers, 333 George St "...Mr Ferguson, an aboriginal and spokesman at the recent conference of that race, was present at the meeting of this School on Feb21. He attended in answer to a letter sent to the Aboriginal's Society, per medium of Mr M Sawtell. The letter referred to, was a tentative effort to make contact with these colored fellow-Australians, and the prompt response in the shape of Mr Ferguson, was something more than the School had dared to hope for. Notwithstanding [the arranged lecture] ... it was decided ... to ask Mr Ferguson to speak for a few minutes, on matters vital to the aboriginal race. Keeping strictly to the time allotted him, and in a manner worthy of the best of the many able speakers who have addressed this School, Mr Ferguson gave a brief outline of the deplorable conditions under which our coloured fellow Australians are living. After his speech it was unanimously agreed to ask Mr Ferguson to deliver a lecture to the School, and this he consented to do. The lecture will be given at the above address, on Monday, April 4, at 8pm. Non-members are invited. Yours for the spread of Culture, HF Collingwood, Sec. School of Modern Writers
The Railroad, 14 March 1939:
State Council Minutes
' ... Committee for Aboriginal Citizenship - Appeal for Donation
Letter from this Committee, dated 17/2/39 - Moved by HB Martin, seconded by FG Byrne, and carried.
'That �1 be donated to the appeal of this Committee to assist it in organising for citizenship rights for Australian Aborigines.'
The Railroad, 10 December 1943:
White Australia Policy by P Y. Bunyan,
"A number of Australian newspapers have castigated and denounced recent utterances or Dr. Lloyd Ross, and have advocated his removal from the Post War Reconstruction Council, but this White Australia policy is a very debatable question, and much could be said regarding the pros and cons of the subject.
Personally, I think the proposal to exclude all coloured races from Australia is as impracticable as it is unjust; it is condemned alike by commonsense and Christian Charity. Even the most bigoted White Australians do not go so far as to advocate deportation or destruction of many thousands of aborigines from whose ancestors we forcibly took this country, and therefore, unless they believe that we shall kill the blacks in time with civilisation, they cannot look forward to the complete realisation of their ideal.
...Today there is a need for true brotherhood, equality of man, and whether born, red, white, black or yellow let us all have regard for each other's rights and feelings."
Eveleigh News, 5 June1957:
New deal for Aborigines
'No "dinkum" Aussie will deny that one of the most shameful features of our Australian history has been the tragic treatment of our Aborigines. Although we all have a very bad conscience about our inhuman behaviour to-wards the original Australians, our authorities continue to deny them economic, social & political equality, & enforce their existence as an underprivileged minority in their own Country. The plight of the Tribal Aborigines is equally tragic, since vast areas of Tribal lands have been violated by the establishment of Rocket and Nuclear weapons testing ranges. The first essential step to-wards the solution of this urgent national problem is to end the present divided State authority & vest full power in the Commonwealth Government. Such a step requires a National petition to the Federal Government calling for a referendum of the people seeking power to amend the constitution. This petition was launched at a recent Town Hall meeting & is already circulating & being solidly supported in many Railway Workshops. The petition is sponsored by the Aboriginal-Australian Fellowship, which organisation is dedicated to this specific work. The Australian Assembly for Peace is also very interested in the question because it was an important discussion topic at the recent National peace Assembly, & also because of the serious danger resulting from Nuclear tests scheduled to be held at Maralinga this year.
The Shop Committee has endorsed the aims of the Aboriginal- Australian Fellowship & also the very active interest in this question by the Australian Peace Assembly & is at present negotiating with both bodies for the provision of speakers to address Eveleigh Loco Employees. Similar successful action was carried out by the Carriage Works Shop Committee. This Committee also organised a "Black and White" Concert which was most successful & also issued an appeal for financial assistance for the Fellowship & the Assembly for Peace, which was outstandingly supported & resulted in over 50 pounds being donated. Eveleigh Committee proposes to follow this course. The Aboriginal-Australian fellowship is a very broad and representative organisation as the following list of Patrons will show: Dame Mary Gilmore, Eric Baume, G.O'Grady, Dr. A. Capell, Anthropology Dept., Sydney University & Dr. W. Wearn B.D.S., D.M.C, D.D.Sc.
The Aboriginal People are Australians --- much more so than we are ourselves --- they deserve all the help & assistance we Railwaymen & others can give them in their fight for full Citizenship. The Shop Committee earnestly appeals to all to support future Committee actions & policy on this vital matter.'
Poem:
Driven from their Tribal Lands
By men who plan for war
Into arid lands around them
To hunger pain & more
Proud in Tribal Legend
On sacred ground they tread
Communing with their spirits
Their totems & their God
So let us raise our voices
In answer to their pleas
To make them equal Citizens
In this Country of the free
Eveleigh News, 7 November1962:
Aboriginal Rights
'Workers in these shops are to be congratulated on the manner in which they signed recent petitions for the removal of discriminatory clauses, oppressive to our Aboriginal Australians, from the Australian constitution'.
A government unions watchdog report has revealed the figures for TUC affiliated and non-affiliated unions.
The Certification Officer's statistics show there was a 50,581 increase in union membership last year, bringing the overall figure to just under 8 million.
Although this rise represents a 0.6 per cent increase, the trend is expected to continue with the recognition aspects of the Employment Relations Act.
TUC General Secretary John Monks said: "This is good news. While it is only a modest increase it shows that the decline in union membership has stopped.
"Unions are recruiting from outside their traditional areas, and our strong campaigns on behalf of all employees - such as our efforts to get the government to extend parental leave - show that we have as much to offer to employees in new industries as well as in areas where we have traditionally been strong."
He added: "Only a minority of employers are now hostile to unions. Most can see that modern trade unionists want partnership, rather than needless conflict."
by Mark Hearn
Big deal? It was for the workers threatened by Davids "administrative convenience", as one worker described the company's "offer", part of negotiations for a new collective agreement. "Davids was not worrying about us as individuals."
ASU Clerks NSW Branch Secretary Michael Want says Davids flexible working hours regime - providing for a 9 day fortnight or a 19 day month, "allows staff to spend precious time with their families, or deal with the personal needs of life otherwise side-lined by the demands of the working week."
For Margaret Reynolds, the 9 day fortnight means she gets one day out of fourteen to herself. For the last five years, she has minded her two grandchildren, while mum works part-time at the TAB. Every weekend, and two nights during the week. The need to provide unpaid child minding duties is a common story recounted by the women who work flexible hours at Davids.
For Judy Irmisch, her day off is a chance to do the banking, and a rare chance to take the kids to school. "They get so excited", she says. Flexible hours enables her to attend the odd school carnival. For two years, her RDO allowed her to take her husband, suffering from a painful back injury, to consultations and physiotherapy sessions.
Michael Want describes Davids actions as typical of the persistent attempts by many employers to use bargaining negotiations as a means of cutting back on hard-won entitlements. "They seem to see each bargaining round as little more than a crude cost-cutting exercise. If companies want to increase productivity, they need to create a happy workplace environment."
The ASU's stand has increased its support amongst the clerks and administrative staff employed by Davids. Membership has grown since the dispute, and the ASU now has over 100 members employed by the company.
Davids was always "family friendly", as one worker observed. "You need time for your family." Davids clerical and administrative staff will now receive a 4% increase, back-dated to 1 January 2000, without trading away their flexible hours. Davids wants to revisit "the question of hours of work" in the next round of collective agreement negotiations.
Photo caption: ASU Branch Secretary Michael Want with the members at Davids. The ASU successfully blocked an attempt by Davids to take away flexible working hours.
by Michael Purvis
The 1998 waterfront dispute between Patrick Stevedores and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) was front page news for over six months and the images are still fresh in our minds. It was a story of security guards with balaclavas and dogs taking over the docks in the middle of the night, thousand of pickets at port gates around the country and legal wrangling that went all the way to the High Court.
But who won? The MUA has claimed it was the ultimate victor since the aim of the Federal Government, Patricks and the National Farmers Federation (NFF) was to end its presence on the Australian waterfront and this clearly failed. Their chant said it all: "MUA - here to stay". And they are still here. On the other hand, Patrick's CEO Chris Corrigan has claimed he won since the share price of Patrick's parent company Lang Corp, more than tripled in the months after the dispute and it reported a profit of $36 million for the year ending September 30, 1999, compared with a loss of $63 million in 1998.
Who won is just one of many intriguing questions examined in this first book on this landmark dispute: Waterfront: The battle that changed Australia, by Fairfax journalists Helen Trinca and Anne Davies. It is a complex story, well told. The book explains how the Howard Government developed its strategy to take on the union, how the training of a substitute workforce in Dubai came unstuck after leaks to the union by a friendly "Deep Throat" and the intervention of International Transport Workers Federation, the role of the NFF, Corrigan's corporate restructure where the wharfies found themselves employed by a company whose assets had been completely stripped and ultimately how the Government was defeated partly by its own legislation. It's a complicated story and the authors do a fine job explaining how the union movement had to fight on a number of fronts: on the ground, in the media and in the courts.
The book highlights key issues that created much controversy during the course of the dispute. Many unionists at the time were asking, why not go in harder and just call a national strike? As the authors point out it would have exposed the entire union movement to damages and would not have lasted long enough to sort out the mess. But this was a view pushed by some within the MUA itself, particularly by joint national secretary, Tony Papconstuntinos, who was eventually sidelined.
Meanwhile, many employers witnessing the effectiveness of the pickets were asking why the police were not doing their duty by enforcing the law against picketing and allowing trucks to move in and out of the docks. Jeff Kennett has been unfairly accused for the alleged failure of the police to clear pickets on the Melbourne waterfront, but as the authors explain the responsibility for this lies elsewhere. At one stage, despite a large crowd picketing the main gate to East Swanston Dock the Victoria Police were able to hold open a small gate on Coode Road for four hours but no trucks were willing to enter the port facility. As Trinca and Davies tell it, three transport companies were willing to try to get goods off the docks for their clients but not without the backing of the entire industry. This highlights a key point that baffled many observers during the dispute; industrial relations is a complex and difficult business and finding solution is usually involves more than just applying the law.
The most intriguing question is of course who won. Trinca and Davies claim that Corrigan was the clear winner since he ultimately ended up with a very profitable business when at one stage he was staring at the prospect of a huge financial loss. But how many employees want to work for an unprofitable employer? An unprofitable company is just a short step away from going into liquidation, laying off workers with many losing their accrued entitlements. Despite their animosity towards Corrigan the MUA would have been the last to want Patrick to go broke. Rather the question of who won depends on what was at stake. Clearly, the key issue was not whether Corrigan could make a quid but whether or not his employees could choose to be union members. It was this question on which the legal battle turned and ultimately the courts upheld the right of Patrick employees to do so.
In the end both sides got part of what they wanted. Corrigan wanted a profitable company but one employing non-union labour. He got the first but not the second. The MUA wanted to uphold the right of its members at Patrick to remain MUA members. It did this but at the cost of having to accept redundancies and a degree of casualisation. Dare I say it, but could the 1998 waterfront dispute be the best example we have yet of the fabled win/win solution?
Waterfront: The battle that changed Australia, by Helen Trinca and Anne Davies, 2000, Doubleday 317pp, $26.95
by The Chaser
Knight announced that, due to popular demand, Gosper will be playing a special role in the Opening Ceremony in September: he will now be lit and thrown into the cauldron, where his flesh will melt, stoking the sacred flame for several hours of slow-release immolation.
Mr Knight says that the move part of their efforts to rebuild public support towards the Games. "We want every Australian to feel a part of our Olympic Games, and I'm sure that all of us will unite as one as we watch Kevan boil, releasing the satisfying aroma of burning flesh for the enjoyment of the entire stadium and the surrounding suburbs. Wanting Kevan to suffer excruciating pain is something that brings all Australians together."
Knight has also extended the offer of participation to the whole of the Hellenic Olympic Committee, who made the initial offer to Sophie Gosper. While the HOC expressed its appreciation of Knight's consideration of them, they declined, saying that they already had plenty of heat from the IOC, which is threatening to move the 2004 Games to Seoul.
"Our decision to continue with the roasting we're getting back home will be self-evident to anyone who has participated in a Korean barbecue," an HOC official announced.
Gosper himself is enthusiastic about the plan, but as a sign of his continuing regret and concern for the Greek-Australian schoolgirl his daughter ousted, Yianna Souleles, he has offered her the spot instead. She has, however, declined, saying that she feels that such a change would be inappropriate, and that the honour should most properly go to Gosper himself.
The controversial former Olympian has consequently decided he will participate in the plan, describing his proposed incineration as simply another of the troubles he has experienced recently. "As far as I am concerned," he explained, "it would be little more than a case of 'out of the frying pan, into the fire'."
Despite the continued media spotlight and harsh public reaction Kevan Gosper has continued to defend his decision to include his daughter in the torch relay.
"It is only fair that someone who has to put up with the arduous Olympic lifestyle that our family leads should get some form of compensation," said a tearful Gosper. "The constant free gifts and free holidays at ski resorts can really start to wear on a girl as young as Sophie."
Yesterday Michael Knight also claimed that the torch scandal represented the end to stuff-ups, misreading of the public and tactical blunders by the organising committee of the games and those associated with the games. Knight seemed relaxed after his statement, made at a lunch where it was announced that Knight's mother would hand out the medals at the games. "Its great to get that out of the way and enjoy this day where finally my mother is getting recognised for all her hard work."
That was probably his last public utterance before he was made hostage - shut behind parliament doors till now.
What he said at the public meeting at Nasole Temple on Wednesday May 17 is very much today a concern for everybody - racial unity.
As you read it you will understand the real 'labour and progressive' values Mahendra Chaudry was promoting.
He said the Governments latest priority was to work out strategies to unite the nation. "Fiji is the only home a hope of all people living here - we must have a common goal
and hope," he said.
He also said that indigenous Fijians and Rotumans should know that their rights and interests take precedence over the rights and interests of other communities, should there be a conflict of interest between Fijians and other communities.
This is the full text of Chaudhry's speech as transcribed by http://fijilive.com:
------------------------------------------------------------
We are completing our one year in Parliament, the coming Friday the 19 of May. 24,
Actually I should have been here earlier than this evening to meet with you and share our views. But it is better late than never.
I have been trying to persuade my members of parliament in your constituency to convene meetings regularly , particularly when parliament is sitting every second month and when we have other members of parliament from other parts of the country in Suva, so that we can go around and meet with the people, in and around Suva, in Nasinu, Nausori, Lami, because there are all of us here for two or three weeks at a time every second month.
But for some reason it has not been possible before now to arrange such a meeting. Having taken the initiative now, I hope that your MPs here will try and hold meetings in different parts of their constituency at more regular intervals.
Tonight you will want to hear, as you have already heard from two of my ministers and honourable Krishna Dutt as to what government has done since taking office some 12 months ago.
As you know if you have read our manifesto, and this was widely distributed, you would have found that we have highlighted the problems we faced as a nation last year. We laid out this problem and then alongside that we also said what we are going to do about these problems if we were elected.
And as a government we had told you that our top priority would be poverty alleviation: that we will work and give priority to those programmes and we will allocate resources to those programmes which will help the poor people because they come first.
And we have begun doing this. In fact we began doing this within the first and second month after resuming office.
We have said that we will bring down food prices on basic items by removing VAT and customs duty. We have done that.
When we did that, there was a lot of hue and cry from the people. There were claims that the government was going to become bankrupt because they are giving away so much money by removing VAT and duty on these items.
But this has not happened. Government revenue is very buoyant
You would have read this morning's paper, the Daily Post, on the front page that the government is bringing 17 more basic consumer items under price control. And these are items that every family uses every day in their homes.
And after a survey was done in 1998, it was the recommendation of those who conducted the survey, government officials that these items should be brought under price control. But the previous government did not want to do it.
We have done that and we hope that by putting these 17 items under price control there will be further reductions in living costs.
For the poor, the disabled and the disadvantaged with no income and no means of support, the government in its 2000 budget increased the family assistance allowance by $1.5 million. So there is now $6.5m a year to what used to be called the Destitute Allowance. We call it Family Assistance Allowance. That is the second initiative we took.
We promised the poor that we would help you when we are elected. There are many people who are poor, who live in rural areas and in and around cities and towns. There is urban poverty also. We are very familiar with the living conditions of many people out in your area, in squatter settlements and elsewhere who live in those conditions because they cannot earn enough income and support their families and live a life of dignity. So we moved to do that.
The Minister of Works has already told you that we have already knocked down the charges for electricity and further reductions in these charges will take place soon. For those with incomes of $6500 income a year and less we have promised that we will bring down the Housing Authority interest rates from 11.5 per cent to six per cent. We have done that.
It couldn't be done overnight but we have done that within the year.
And for those of you who are earning more than $6500 and are borrowers from Housing Authority we will soon reduce the rate from 11.5 per cent progressively and it will come down. So that is another promise that we have fulfilled.
We said to you that we will re-establish students loans scheme. Children of poor families or those families with inadequate incomes who wanted to send their children to tertiary institutions like USP, FIT etc but who could not do so because they do not have enough income to pay the fees or they couldn't get a scholarship.
We said the government would provide the money under a scheme known as Children's Loan Scheme. We have done that.
From this year we have established a Children's Loan Scheme to assist children and poor families access to a tertiary education and we have provided $1m this year. This may go up as resources permit. So that is another promise that we have fulfilled.
We said we would promote, grow the development in rural areas by allocating more money and resources for agriculture.
My Minister for Agriculture has already spoken about that. And there is a very good reason for doing that. Every country should produce enough food to feed this population. Food security is very important. We cannot rely on imported food. That is the wrong strategy.
We must produce as much food as we can within the country so that food is cheap and import only food that we cannot grow locally. And for that if we have to protect our farmers we should protect them.
That is why we helped to revive Rewa Rice Ltd. Some people did not like that. But there were $1000 rice farmers in Vanua Levu. They have no other livelihood and if we hadn't revived the Rewa Rice company those 1000 families would have become destitute.
Some people who are importing rice into this country and who are making a lot of money out of that did not like that because they said they will not be able to make a lot of money if Rewa Rice company comes back into operation.
They don't want to care about what those 1000 families will do, how their children and wives will live, what they will eat. But this government cares about them. We care for the people, that is why we did that. It cost the people $4.5m to start Rewa Rice again. But this is the government that puts people before money. That is why we did that. Another reason for agriculture development is that land in this country is largely owned by our Fijian brothers and sisters.
Now much of that land is lying idle and undeveloped, except in the sugar cane belt. A lot of other land is not put to productive use. The government's strategies are to see that by investing money in agriculture we will encourage our Fijian brothers and sisters to develop their land so that they can earn income from that development. They can become commercial farmers, land which they did not need, once they develop it they can lease it and earn an income from lease money.
And for that we have created additional resources and all those land owners who are willing to have their land developed can use this money to develop that. And this is one way of addressing Fijian poverty in the rural areas because they have a resource there which they can develop and earn incomes out of. That is another reason for pouring money into agriculture.
I can go on for the rest of the night telling what government has done to help the poor, help revive the economic development. Mr Krishna Dutt has told you that he has confirmed most of our promises inside the last 12 months. But much work needs to be done.
Our latest priority at this time is to unite our nation. That is very important. Because a nation that is divided, which is split will not progress. No matter where you are. We have seen this even in the developed world where inter ethnic conflict and other unfortunate events had crippled much great nations, much more advanced and richer than Fiji.
Fiji's only hope and hope for all her people is that we all come together as brothers and sisters, as citizens of common interest, with a common goal. Everybody's right and interest, traditions, customs and cultures are protected under the constitution. Let nobody fool you that your custom is under threat, your religion is under threat, that your land maybe taken away from you, that you might lose your property. No.
Let me remind those people who are protesting today, that they were the very ones who put through the 1997 Constitution when they were in power. And under that very Constitution the rights and interests of all the communities are firmly secure. Moreover, the rights and interests of our indigenous community - the Fijian and the Rotumans take precedence over the right and interests of other communities should there be a conflict of interest between the rights and interests of the Fijian community and those of other communities.
Now that having been done, we saw what happened to this country after the 1987 coups. We all suffered in the process, everybody, not a single one did not suffer. Maybe some didn't, those who created this mischief. But by and large, all of us suffered - Indians, Fijians, Chinese.
We all suffered to some degree and the consequence of that: the country suffered because the economy plunged. Jobs were lost, our currency devalued, everything became very dear. Government did not have enough money to provide for good health services, education, to build and repair roads, to help the poor.
And it took us 12 long years to build back. We put through a new constitution in 1997. It came into force in 1998. It is a Constitution which seeks to unite the people of the country, irrespective of race. It is a constitution that provides for power sharing. Our government is made up four political parties. It is not a Labour government. It is a People's Coalition government. We have the Labour Party, the Fijian Association Party, the Christian Democratic Alliance and the Party of National Unity. And of course, we have the General Voters Party who joined us after the elections. We have one or two independents as well.
Out of 71 members in parliament, 58 sit on the government side.
So it is a very representative government. No one can accuse it of being a government of one race. And we took special pains to ensure that we reassured our Fijian brothers and sisters.
As Prime Minister, I opened 12 Fijians to my Cabinet and only six Indians. Because for the first time, the nation was to have a non Fijian Prime Minister. In such a situation, it was very important that I retain the trust and confidence of the Fijian people. I also invited that time the SVT party to join the government because they had constitutional right. Under the Constitution, any party which wins
10 per cent or more of the seats is entitled to be represent in the Cabinet. I did invite them to join the government. But they stipulated conditions which were very difficult for any reasonable government to accept. And by choice they decided to stay out of the government. Otherwise they would have been part of the government also.
Now we also have a major party, the National Federation Party. That party is not represented in Parliament any more.
They had a coalition with the SVT party. And when they went into election, they went on a platform also of multi-racialism.
But after they lost the elections, SVT has changed. It is no longer espousing multi-racial principles. In fact, they have become very racial. One can see that in parliament too, in debate and directions and all that. On account of that I am wondering whether the NFP remains part of that coalition. Because we have to be honest with ourselves.
We cannot play politics with the lives of innocent people. And we don't do that. We went to these elections, and ever since the formation of the Labour Party, we had a dream, a vision about Fiji. We want to see a prosperous and a united country.
Fiji is a great country. It has great peoples and great potential. It will all come together. Nobody will want to go to Australia and New Zealand. We can create those conditions right here in Fiji. But if we can come together than So that is the vision with which we have been working ever since 1985 when I entered politics for the first time. And that is the vision that has driven us and my colleagues.
We have a vision for Fiji. We want to see a united and prosperous Fiji where there is love, there is share and care for each other and where the nation has enough resources to provide for everyone.
After all what does the human being want. What do you want ... whether you be a Fijian, an Indian or a Chinese, what do you want. What do you really want from life? What you want is to be happy. Everybody wants to be happy and to be happy you must be able to satisfy your daily needs. If you have children you must be able to provide for them. You must have a place called home, a roof over your heads, you must have clothes to wear. You must have three meals a day. You must have a job which brings you the income from which you can provide for your children. You want the government to provide for education for your children and good health services and water and electricity.
If you have all these, you are a contented person. That is what one expects from life. If you are able to meet your daily needs, your family is happy, your children get a good education, they are able to get a good job. That is all what everybody wants. And that is the responsibility of government to see. Then we provide these things for our people. (Clapping)
But we cannot do that unless we come together. Government can only do so much. What government can do depends on its ability, on the financial resources that it has at its disposal. But the economy does not just run on that. The economy runs on how productively we use the resources at our disposal. And if our economy is doing well then people will be doing so long as you help the government there which believes in fair distribution of wealth.
This is the vision that we have of Fiji. And we can do it if we can come together. There are issues that they are addressing in those marches. They are not the real issues affecting the Fijians. No. Their real issues is what I am saying.
We were ready to debate in parliament, we are currently debating the social justice bill, affirmative action. What the government can do to help the disadvantaged people in education, housing, land and all that the constitution requires the parliament to do. An act of legislation for affirmative action.
The disadvantaged people in our community and actually the contribution from a number of members of the opposition was quite sickening.
They are pointing at the problems faced by the Fijian people - Fijian poverty, education, in commerce etc. These are the problems of the Fijian people, I know that. We have known that for a long time and we have got programmes and ideas how to address those problems. But they make it sound as if these problems were created since we came into power. That is only 12 months ago.
And I said they are thinking as if for the last 30 years since independence, for 29 years we have had a Fijian prime minister. If I have to take the blame, I will take one thirtieth of the blame. Not more than that. The rest of the blame must be taken by those people.
But you see the way they whip up the emotions. It is not fair. So this is what they are trying to do at the moment. Quite wrongly, they are distorting things. They are telling outright lies even in Parliament. And with this kind of leadership, this kind of behaviour, we will never be able to build a nation. It is a very basic thing that one cannot attain happiness by making others unhappy. You can't do that. We will never be happy if you want to make others unhappy. You yourself will not get justice if you are not just to others. And this is the message that is there in every scripture, every prophet's message, in every religion. We are all God's children. Whether we are born Fijian, Indian, Chinese or a European. We don't decide. He decides. So why can't we as all his children live in peace and harmony.
In every democratic nation, people have the right to choose their government. You have chosen a government. Many pray that the government they will do good. God has given you a government, support that government. Because they are there to do good for you, for all of us.
But if every time we lose election, we want to change the Constitution of the country, we will not get anywhere. The world is moving ahead very fast, we have entered the 21st century. This is a world of technology. We have got to move forward with that world. IF we have to take our Fijian brothers and sisters with us, we have to work overtime for them. Because they must become a part of this fast moving world. And we cannot do that by keeping the nation divided by wanting to feed on non existence racial prejudice, things that don't exist, which are just invented by people for their own best reasons.
I will talk to you about these things because they too concern me, that they must be concerning you. I know for the last few weeks you have seen all this. You must be thinking about this. Many of you may be thinking what is our future, how secure are we. Don't despair because inherently there is a lot of goodness in our people. WE all owe our allegiance to Fiji. We are Fiji's children and whatever we do we must do for the good of this land, for the good of this country, that is like a mother to us. So in all our actions, thoughts and needs, we must think like that.
We have been trying very hard in the government to move the economy because at the end of the day, it is a growing, vibrant and healthy economy that will deliver.
We don't have an economy that is growing, that is vibrant. We cannot help the poor, we cannot give the job that our young men and women are dying for, we cannot give you good roads, we cannot give you water supply, we can't give you good education, we can't give you good health services. Everything depends on how an economy does. That is where the prosperity comes from.
And that will only come, as I said we work together and utilise both our human resources and others. And this is what this government is trying to do, trying to move the country forward, address the problems that we have faced, help the poor, develop agriculture, tourism and other sectors of the economy so that we can provide a better life for ourselves. That is the aim of your government and that is what we will carry on doing. So I ask tonight to have faith, confidence and trust in your own selves, and in this country and above all have trust in the world because he will deliver you, don't worry.
Life has never been easy but we can make it easy if we all do the right thing. So that is my appeal to you tonight and from time to time we will be coming and visiting you and we will be keeping you informed of what the government does.
by Terry O'Brien
In this country there is a battle going on to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the population - well the biggest possible slice of those hearts and minds, anyway. So they're not using guns. They are using the media. They are using the kids. They are after your bucks.
The race to become Australia's premier sport is on in earnest. The battle between the seasons is a minor distinction. Hop onto the Internet and you can follow live cricket all day, every day. Well, just about, anyway. I can go to work this weekend and follow the football on the Web. I don't need to take anything with me. I can use the boss's computer, have it running continuously in the background, and keep up with what's happening. And keep up with my work, too.
In fact, I can do that from anywhere in the world. Anywhere there's phone access, at least. Sport has gone global. The need to dominate the market has become, it seems, the over riding concern of the sports' administrators. Go global. Keep the game alive. That's the apparent rationale. In reality, it seems, it's getting the sponsors dollars. Get the game on the box. Get the maximum coverage. Streamline. Maximise profits. Make more profit.
There seems to be a slight hitch in the whole scheme. At least as far as the major Australian footy codes are concerned. The punters aren't listening. The bums on seats litmus test of acceptance is on the down turn. Why are overall crowds down? Maybe it's because the bean counters have taken over. And they seem to have infiltrated most levels of sports administration.
What they seem to have forgotten is where sport comes from. It comes from the battles over the village green. The pride of the suburb. The kind loyalty that usually comes from a sense of belonging to a community. Certainly this sense of community can be expanded to a suburb, a city, a state, or a nation. But it is the sense of ownership that builds the passion, the passion that gets bums on seats.
Television coverage seems to be at the heart of the bean collectors' counting. Sure, it's nice to get live coverage of your tribe when they are playing on the other side of the country. Or the globe. But it can never replace being there. And now a lot of people seem to have decided that they don't want to be there. Why?
Rugby League had the Super League debacle. After everyone had kissed and made up lots of teams went to the wall. Some amalgamated and became new entities. On the surface the best of both worlds was retained. In reality, the stronger club consumed the other, and the bums on seats meter indicates that nobody's happy.
Then there's the Bunnies. South Sydney refused to compromise and got dumped. The Rabbitohs will be in court soon to fight their case, but even if South Sydney win their case the fallout may already be to great too save the game. Everywhere I go I see more Souths jumpers, Tee Shirts, and other paraphernalia around now than I recall seeing for years, and wearing the gear draws constant comments of support. The peasants are revolting! But is it to late to save Souths? Is it too late too save the game?
In the AFL only Fitzroy has gone. They became Brisbane. The new being took the Roy Boys Lions tag, but it's still Brisbane. There are many Victorians who still bemoan the fact that it's no longer the Victorian Football League. It's now the national version with the Australian adjective replacing the state name.
The realists know this had to happen, and generally support the concept. Some may harbour regrets, but favourite jumpers eventually get replaced. Sometimes they get hidden in the back of the cupboard and are pulled out in moments of deep sentimentality, but they are never really worn again.
It seems the bean counters have gone too far. They've forced teams from their home ground and enticed them to play in the Docklands Stadium. The fact that that Footscray, sorry, Western Bulldogs, had more home grounds than the Hyatt has hot dinners doesn't matter. Crowds are down. The fact that Hawthorn and St Kilda had traditional home grounds that weren't the white elephant Waverly didn't matter. The fans didn't like the move. Perhaps it is that in Waverly Park, with all its faults, the paying public had some sense of ownership? Now it may be a little unfair to blame all this on Docklands and its ticketing fiascos, but something's caused the punters put their wallets in their pockets and go to the pub instead.
In Sydney it's easy to point the finger. The Swans are slumping and slumping dramatically. No Swans success, no crowds. Yeah, Sydney loves a winner. Everyone knows that. Or conventional wisdom says that everyone knows it. But it ignores what may really be happening.
Why did the Kangaroos latest Sydney game just pip six thousand bums on seats? Even given that three thousand kids, or so went to a super clinic before hand and got free admission to save them from total embarrassment. But North Melbourne are winners, aren't they? They won the Grand Final last year didn't they? I saw it on TV! And still nobody went to the party. Why?
Could it be that the Aussie Rules market has been saturated? There are kids taking up the game in droves. There are thousands of ex-pats from AFL indoctrinated states. You would have thought some of them might have been interested in going along. So what is it? Could it be that Sydney Siders are cynical about the Roos motives? Just in it for a fast buck. One thing seems to be clear. North Melbourne have said they have no intention of becoming the second Sydney team. It seems they've done nothing to convince the Harbourside dwellers that their interest is anything other than a opportunist grab at Australia's most lucrative market whilst they remain a Melbourne based club.
They have, apparently, made the classic bean counters mistake. They think global. That's OK. But at their peril, they ignore the local.
Youth Union Membership
The study of young people and trade unions by the Employment Studies Centre at the University of Newcastle, commissioned by the Newcastle Trades Hall Council found that major reasons for lack of interest and membership of unions by young workers were: Lack of knowledge, Fear of victimisation, Poor access to union information.
Young workers have very little knowledge of what unions actually do, the democratic structures of unions that make the unions "theirs" and also were unaware of the legal constraints on unions.
The image of unions was very much the blue-collar bloke type. Media portrayal of unions reinforced a negative message.
Michael Crosby from TUTA says these findings match the research the ACTU and other bodies have been doing.
Some of the recommendations of the report have already been taken up by unions, including the focus on young organisers and youth teams.
Crosby rejects the "good news" media strategy recommended by the report as being a tried and failed approach. He also says the suggestion of cut price membership drives would not be a wise investment for the future.
Crosby would prefer the approach of practical organising and campaigning to give young people an idea of the positive feeling of working as a group for a common purpose.
Community and grass-roots campaigning is a part of this. The CFMEU Rio Tinto campaign is a good example of unions joining with other organisations on a broad issue which does not only effect their members jobs but the well-being of the environment and corporate ethics.
(Workplace Change; issue 50, May 2000; University of Newcastle. Employment Studies Centre. Young People and Trade Unions)
Union Delegate Reinstated
A meatworker sacked by G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd, a Victorian abattoir, was reinstated by Federal Court order. The abattoir was at the centre of a long dispute with the AMIEU last year, and the worker was sacked for gross misconduct after attending a union meeting while off work with a back injury. The union sought reinstatement because it saw the sacking as a breach of the freedom of association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act (AMIEU v G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd, FCA 627 12/5/00)
(Discrimination Alert; issue 111, 23 May 2000)
The Implementation of Competitive tendering in the Australian Social Welfare Sector
Competitive tendering and the way it is implemented create a detrimental impact on the social welfare sector. As governments become more specific about service and eligibility requirements, service providers have less control over the types of services they are able to offer and the types of people they may accept as clients.
Co-operation between agencies is reduced when tender requirements prohibit information sharing. Participating in the tender process is time and resource intensive. Reporting requirements add to administration costs. Service quality is of course, reduced.
(Just Policy; no. 18, April 2000)
Disability Discrimination in Employment: eyesight
A person successfully applied for a position in a public sector organization but subsequently failed the eyesight test so was not appointed.
Under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 it is unlawful, when deciding who to employ to discriminate against a person on the grounds of disability as long as the person can carry out the inherent requirements of the job. The public sector organization said that the person couldn't carry out the inherent requirements because of the failed eyesight test.
The complainant argued that the employer cannot defend their standard of eyesight requirement because other employees safely and satisfactorily performed the inherent requirements even though they wore visual aids. The complainant had previously worked in a similar position and argued that the standard was arbitrary and inflexible.
The Tribunal determined that the person was refused employment because of a disability. The person past record should have been taken into account when assessing they could carry out the inherent requirements of the job. Instead the employer had relied solely on medical assessment.
The level of vision required in the job takes account of the risk of visual aids being dislodged. However the employer makes no attempt to enforce the standard except in pre-employment testing.
The tribunal found discrimination against the rejected applicant. The matter is currently on appeal.
(Equal Time; no. 44, May 2000)
Shoe Roadworthiness
The CSIRO is calling for a new standard for slip resistance in footwear.
More than half a million people were hospitalised in the 1990s after slips and falls at work. In 1995-96 slips and falls cost the community $3.17 billion!
Good quality safety footwear is manufactured and exported here but other types of footwear need work.
(Occupational Health and Safety Bulletin; vol. 9, no. 188, 8 March 2000)
Adolescent Worker Occupational Health and Safety
C. Mayhew
Young workers are frequently said to be at increased risk of occupational injury and death. This article examines the evidence about patterns of injury among working adolescents, reviews some international approaches to controlling the risks, lists key findings from one recent Australian study of young casual workers, and highlights some potential control measures.
(Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand; vol. 16, no. 2. April 2000)
Labour Market Programs
An ABS study of the effectiveness of the primary labour market programs between 1994-1997 has found that job seekers involved in these programs significantly improved their chances of finding employment.
The programs were those set up under the ALP Working Nation strategy. The major initiatives under this program were a wage subsidy program and training programs (significant by their absence from Work-For-the-Dole), brokered employment programs that provided funds for projects of community significance and job-search programs targeting long-term unemployed.
The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) carried out its own evaluation that largely mirrors the ABS study. The findings emphasise the importance of wage subsidy schemes that incorporate training programs.
(ACOSS Impact; May 2000)
Individual v Collective Bargaining: developments, outcomes and experiences in Australian workplaces
Grant Poulton
The author, the deputy director of Australian Business Industrial addresses the impact of AWAs from a policy context, a statistical context and anecdotally. He sees people, employers and employees, as having a unrealistic expectations of AWAs. The fact of their being a no disadvantage test and that individual employees can appoint bargaining agents are seen as ways that conditions and wages are protected, as is the position of unions.
Statistically the problem is seen to be not enough statistical analysis available, because the secrecy of documents means that they can't be analysed as ACIRRT does with enterprise agreements.
Anecdotal evidence from employer members of Australian Business suggests that reasons for not pursuing AWAs include:
� transaction costs for development and implementation,
� processing delays,
� sending wrong messages to employees (perceived as anti-union approach) thus creating hostility in a workplace,
� uncertainty over outcomes because of the application of the no-disadvantage test,
� repeating the process over and over for individuals
Advantages of AWAs for employers have come from an unanticipated direction, in particular from the development of traineeship AWAs. Previously it was difficult to fit training systems into the award system, according to Poulton.
(http://www.workplaceinfo.com.au, Australian Business website)
National Party backbencher Ian Causley - who was a Minister in NSW in the Greiner regime before moving onto the national stage - was pushing the theory after Sunday's successful event.
The self-styled Wombat of the NSW North Coast was first out of the blocks trying to diminish what has to be the largest public demonstration Sydney has ever seen.
It was, according to Causley, merely a set-up by those who want to see their backyards reclaimed by undesirable natives.
"A lot of these events were quite orchestrated," was Causley's analysis.
"I think you'll find quite a few buses arrived and you'd want to know who organized those buses," he continued.
"Maybe the money would have been better put to Aboriginal health and housing," was his surprising conclusion.
This from a man famous for distinguishing himself with bush constituents for advocating the full sale of Telstra. Maybe to prevent the orchestration of decent service levels.
Not that he's against buses. He's also remembered for suggesting that unemployed people should be sent out of his electorate and look for jobs in the Big Smoke.
While we see him as a proto-Tool the Big Wally has higher tabs on himself - in fact he stuck his hand up for leadership of the Nats when Fisher hung up the Akubra.
Alas, he secured just four votes - and three of these were bussed in ....
© 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/56/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 |