by Mark Morey
The report 'Like Cutting Bamboo' and the campaign 'Just Stop It' were launched at a forum at NSW Parliament House this week.
The "Just Stop It" campaign has been organised by the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA), Fair Wear and Community Aid Abroad-Oxfam Australia. The campaign aims to challenge Nike, as a major Olympic sponsor, to live up to the Olympic ideals of fairness and respect for human dignity by addressing human rights abuses in its suppliers' factories in Asia. Nike were invited to participate in the forum but they stated "In the lead up to the Olympics, all our staff are too busy and would be unable to participate in the debate".
The forum was addressed by Jim Keady and Leslie Kretzu who spent August in Indonesia trying to survive on a Nike workers wages of $2 a day. Keady, a former soccer professional and coach is also the only know professional athlete to publicly refuse to endorse Nike. At the time, Keady was a coach at St John's University, the largest Catholic University in America. As part of the $3.5 million sponsorship deal, Nike required all university soccer players and coaching staff to wear Nike products. However, Keady complained about Nike's human rights record and raised issues in relation to how their work practices contravened basic human rights. St John's administrators directed Keady to wear Nike, drop his grievances and stop his public criticism of the company. Instead Keady resigned, "in all consciousness I had to resign, so I did".
For Keady, the main issue continues to be the violation of human rights, "what people don't realise is that there are individuals behind these stories, families, parents and children who are living on $2 a day. It is inhumane and ideologically wrong and it violates human rights". Keady believes that it is the silence of institutions such as St Johns that legitimises companies like Nike and does not address their poor practices.
Leslie Kretzu, who travelled with Keady, stated that from their discussions with factory employees, OH&S standards "mean not too much" in many of the factories. Workers stated that before independent inspections of their factory by Nike auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers, management would change the toxic glue (R105) to a less toxic variety (R107) for the duration of the audit. Staff also received no training on how to use toxic chemicals. Masks used by factory staff were of a poor quality and the glue fumes seeped through the masks regardless. Prior to audit inspections workers were always given new masks. Workers received only two clean pairs of gloves a week instead of a clean pair daily. However, they always received a clear pay on the days the auditors were in the factory. Nike is prepared to reimburse medical bills once the worker has paid their bill in full. But because of the low wages, no workers have the savings that would allow them to pay for medical assistance up front. Workers stated they would rather have access to a health plan rather than access to the limited medical facilities provided at the factory clinics.
Ms Kretzu believed fear was a significant component in the management of staff at these factories. For example, workers were fearful of asking to use the bathroom or even to take the two toilet breaks they were permitted. In one factory there were only 5 toilets for 2000 people. Ms Kretzu said that in the factories, menstruating women were forced to wear two lots of sanitary pads and black clothes to hide bloodstains, as they knew they would bleed through their protection because of the limited toilet breaks they were afforded. Ms Kretzu stated that in some Indonesian sweatshops women were being asked to pull down their pants in front of the factory doctor in order to claim their legally-mandated menstrual leave, "this is an outrageous affront to women it violates their religious beliefs, not to mention the personal violation they experience".
Lisa Riley of Fair Wear said that nothing Nike did in relation to the way it treated the workers in its Indonesian contract factories promoted the Olympic goals of the 'harmonious development of man' or the "preservation of human dignity". Similarly, Community Aid Abroad-Oxfam Australia's report, Like Cutting Bamboo indicated, "Nike is failing to protect workers' union rights in its suppliers' factories". The campaign aims to get Nike to sign the Homeworkers Code of Practice in Australia. The Homeworkers Code of Practice is a document used by Fair Wear and the TCFUA as a way of checking if exploitation is happening and taking steps to fix it. Nike continues to refuses to sign the Code of Practice in Australia. Riley believes that Nike should live up to the Olympic ideals and sign the Home Workers Code of Practice, "Nike is an industry leader and sponsor, they need to lift their game and sign the Fear Wear Code of Practice if it (Nike) believes in the Olympic ideals and a fair days pay for a fair days work".
Community Aid Abroad-Oxfam Australia also released its disturbing report "Like Cutting Bamboo" based on research into Nike's Indonesian contract factories, the report assessed how well Nike and its factory partners in Indonesia were protecting the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The research was conducted in March and April of this year with independent union organisers from three Nike sportshoe contract factories interviewed. The report found workers who took part in independent union activities in their factories:
The reports author, Tim Connor believed the monitoring undertaken by Nike of its contract factories was failing to discover these problems as the monitors either "don't talk to production line workers at all, or else interview workers without protecting their identity so workers will not speak due to fear of losing their jobs".
Other issues discovered by the research included:
Community Aid Abroad-Oxfam Australia, together with Fear Wear and the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia are calling for Nike to:
1. Allow regular spot-checks of all its contract factories by genuinely independent monitors 2. Establish a confidential, independent complaints mechanism for Nike workers who feel their rights are being infringed; and 3. Sign the Homeworkers Code of Practice in Australia
by Hill Fredmer
Until now, only the notorious Joy Mining company at Moss Vale, NSW, and GK O'Connor's abattoir at Packenam in Victoria, have used lock-out provisions available since 1997 under Peter Reith's Workplace Relations Act, against their workers.
What Fairfax's chief executive, Fred Hilmer, thought he would achieve by locking 1,200 journalists, photographers and artists out of the company's headquarters in Sydney and Melbourne may never be known. If there was a strategy it wasn't clear.
Maybe Hilmer - whose appointment to head Fairfax was a mystery to many after his career as a time-and-motion academic and not a hands-on company boss - thought he could instil fear in the hearts of employees whose professional work he apparently still fails to appreciate, as well as failing to understand their united position.
And yet the lock-out, for all its lack of forethought and subtlety, was the catalyst for what is now a settlement of Fred's dispute with staff after he discovered that a lock-out can rebound on a newspaper company that wants to publish without the talented people who put it together.
A dispute at Fairfax has been simmering for months in the lead-up to the Olympics after management refused to improve a pay offer or discuss resourcing issues such as staffing. On Wednesday, 30 August, staff of The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian Financial Review, The Sun Herald and Business Review Weekly voted nationally to exercise their right, after three days formal notice during a bargaining period, to take legally protected strike action.
Some of the group's newspapers did not return to work after the meeting vote - but a general strike was held the next day, as well as a picket outside Fairfax's Sydney offices. On Friday 1 August, staff returned to work but began a campaign of rolling stoppages in which certain sections of the papers were to walk out at times to coincide with production deadlines.
Fred obviously didn't like this and, using what Fairfax called its own right to take industrial action, informed staff in writing that they were to be locked out. Management was to put out the papers on its own.
In Sydney and Melbourne staff stayed at their desks awaiting advice from their union, The Media Alliance. It was decided in Sydney to walk out en masse at 6pm. It was in Melbourne, though, where the actions of staff were critical to the outcome of the dispute. Unlike Sydney, where the printing presses are far away from the media offices in the city, The Age still prints and distributes newspapers in the same building as its media staffs in Spencer Street. After eventually leaving the building The Age's editorial staff set up a picket outside and refused to allow trucks carrying papers for Saturday's AFL Grand Final Day to leave the building. Even a court injunction obtained by Fairfax to stymie the picket did not work following support at the picket from printers and the wider trade union movement.
Fred Hilmer and his executives had a rethink. They re-entered negotiations with staff negotiators, ended the lock-out by Sunday and agreed to make an improved pay offer, as well as committing to negotiations on better resourcing of the group's newspapers.
By Wednesday, September 6, the scheduled end of a company-union truce, Fairfax was offering staff pay rises averaging 9 per cent over three years, plus a profit share agreement of about 5 per cent over the same period. The company also agreed to a summit on resourcing newspapers that would involve staff.
The unions support the merger of National Rail and FreightCorp. They say the survival of rail needs the merger as part of an integrated National transport strategy.
A merger would combine the strengths of National Rail's more modern stock with FreightCorp's lucrative contracts.
The Rail Bus and Tram Union commissioned Price Waterhouse Coopers to do a report outlining different scenarios for FreightCorp's future in order to develop a position which would secure members jobs.
Of the five scenarios developed the RBTU believed the best option was for FreightCorp to buy National Rail. The Federal Government has rejected this avenue with the ideological position that State owned entities would be precluded from bidding for National Rail.
RBTU's Nick Lewocki says the next preferred option was for a joint venture with the sale of 50% of FreightCorp to be put together to purchase National Rail.
'The rejection of our proposition will result in NRC being sold for less than its capital value and have FreightCorp facing unfair competition for business, resulting in the loss of 600 jobs in the next 12 months,' he said.
Nick Lewocki says the union's resolve hasn't weakened on public ownership.
'It was our report and campaign that kept Rail Services Australia in public ownership. We regard this as a survival strategy in response to the Government's decision to sell National Rail,' he says.
Labor Council's Michael Costa says the Government should reconsider its position and conduct a more detailed study of the merger proposal.
'It's about the best business outcome that protects jobs. That is a merged entity. It's disappointing the Government is going in this direction,' he says.
The NSW Government also supports the sale of Freightcorp in parallel with the sale of National Rail Corp. In addition the Government says they will:
The Government has also guaranteed public ownership and operations of STA bus and ferry services, City Rail passenger fleet maintenance and carriage cleaning, Countrylink services and on board services, Rail ferries Australia and Rail Access Corporation including Network Control.
by Dermot Browne
The report reveals;
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) says the report confirms many issues the union has raised since 1997.
National President, Matthew Reynolds said " members in agencies where IT has been outsourced continue to report many 'user-end' problems. These include slow, unhelpful 'help' desks, tardy toner replacement, minor repairs taking weeks to be serviced and lengthy e-mail crashes. This is leading to increased tension in the workplace and is eroding productivity."
The report also reveals that a huge chunk of the IT outsourcing budget - 40 per cent - has gone to IT advisers working for Shaw Pittman Potts and Trowbridge's, an American consultancy.
The report shows the Government has been paying one adviser $1.7 million a year, another two more than $1 million a year each.
ALP Senator, Kate Lundy, said "The program has cost $33 million to implement and we know through the Audit Office report that about $24 million of that is for three advisers. Three people, for a couple of years, in one office providing advice on how to run this program.
The CSIRO Staff Association currently battling government plans to outsource CSIRO information technology, said it was appalled by the amount of money the audit showed had been wasted on overseas consultants at a time when science funding was so rare.
Assistant Secretary Pauline Gallagher said the association had been aware of the blowout in costs of implementing and managing contracts.
"Add to this the poor service record of the existing contract providers, their failure to set up and maintain adequate security of IT systems, and questions on...capability to meet government agency needs, and you have a recipe for disaster..."
by Peter Zangari
Thai and NZ labour hire workers are doing identical work and working side by side with Australian workers on completely different wages and working conditions. It is estimated that they now make up as much as 10% of the flight attendant workforce.
With just under a week until submissions are due, the current NSW Government Labour Hire Inquiry is digging quite a few skeletons from the closet. A Labor Council Working Group on Labour Hire has found that the explosion in labour hire is really a late nineties HR phenomena with obvious implications for the future of working arrangements.
In recent times, we have witnessed a growing trend, which treats labour in almost purely commodity terms, often on the basis of commercial as opposed to labour law principles. For some workers this means they are treated as highly desired commodities (eg some IT workers in short supply). For many others, however, it has meant they are treated as 'cannon fodder' - taken and expended much as one takes on and dispenses with any other input in production.
It has been found that the problem is not restricted to the metropolitan regions, traditional blue-collar areas or the private sector, as one would expect. Rural and Regional Industries have been utilizing the services of labour hire companies, white collar service industries have amongst the highest incidences of labour hire and the Public Sector has little pockets that are rampant with labour hire employees.
While labour hire ( a category of non-standard work) is growing, it is important to note that the most common form of employment is still standard employees (ie those engaged on ongoing contracts of service with leave entitlements). According to the ABS's recent Forms of Employment Survey these types of workers make up about 58.8% of the workforce. It won't be long until this figure slides under 50% and the standard employees of today become the non-standard employees of tomorrow.
The following are a number of case studies that indicate Labour Hire is creeping into more and more workplaces as we speak. Who knows when your workplace will be hit?
Clerical Industry
A member was employed by Drake to work on an assignment at Air Services Australia doing clerical work. He was a shift worker. He has not been paid overtime for work done on Saturdays nor penalties for working the afternoon shift. This went on for about four years. The matter has been lodged as a dispute notification with the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. Drake has refused to pay any monies on advice from their lawyers.
Finance Industry
The FSU reports that the problem is manifesting itself in different ways for different segments of the finance industry. The introduction of Ezy banking is totally changing the face of work in the sector. These days you can do a banking transaction and not actually ever deal with a bank employee. Whilst many employees in this sector do not necessarily want to be permanents many do, however, want predictability and fairness in their work.
Transport Industry
A lack of adequate training often puts labour hire employees at serious risk. Cleary Bros. is a transport company that has a contract transporting waste from waste transfer stations to tips using drivers engaged through labour hire firms. One particular driver was engaged and he received no training in waste management practices. All he was told was to "get in the truck and drive". One day he transferred a load of rubbish to the Menai tip. After performing the tipping operation on his truck he got out of the cab to clear out some rubbish that caught itself at the back of the trailer. As he did this he received a needle stick injury.
After receiving some basic first aid at the tip he returned to his base at Artarmon. He reported the incident to the site management who told him not to worry about it and go back to work. Later on this worker went for a HIV test, only to be told he had to wait three months to find out if he had contracted the HIV virus. The worker became very stressed. Neither Cleary Bros. nor the labour hire firm would pay his medical expenses or provide counselling to this worker until the Union became involved. Eventually the labour hire firm got him to fill out a workers compensation form so that they could pay for his medical expenses through their insurance policy and Cleary Bros. reluctantly provided counselling and a weeks paid leave.
One of the major problems is that there are some opportunistic competitors in the labour hire industry. Whilst there are many labour hire competitors who observe award conditions, there must be greater control over those competitors who get a commercial advantage by undermining basic standards.
The Labor Council of NSW submission to the NSW Government Labour Hire Inquiry will be available online, next Friday 15 September at http://lcnsw.labor.net.au/papers/
by Bernadette Molony
National Secretary, CFMEU Construction & General Division, John Sutton says the CFMEU is playing no formal role in the protest on the 11th and does not anticipate any violence or endorse violent protesting at the World Economic Forum.
"What Reith and Costello are attempting to do is scapegoat the CFMEU in anticipation of trouble on September 11,' he says.
"With several thousand people joining the protests, it is to be expected that some may become ill from the effects of a long day, heat exhaustion or forgetting to take regular medicines. To offer trained first aid assistance and an easily identifiable first aid marquee in such a context is merely being responsible.'
"The CFMEU has a proud record of attention to safety in Victoria. Since some of our representatives hold first aid qualifications, it is appropriate that we should be able to offer that assistance."
'Reith's and Costello's claims that the CFMEU is supplying first aid assistants to patch up injured protestors is a complete fabrication,' said Mr Sutton.
John Sutton says the CFMEU has no control over what S11 organisers put on their Website. References on the Website to the CFMEU provision of first aid assistance make no mention of injured demonstrators he says.
"The CFMEU will be participating in the union demonstration on Tuesday September 12th against the negative effects of globalisation on workers," said Mr Sutton.
Unions 2000 is a structure of combined unions organizing together and coordinated by the Labor Council of NSW.
Unions 2000 coordinator Chris Christodoulou says for many workers particularly those aged 16-24 it is their first involvement with the trade union movement.
'After the Olympics all these workers will have the opportunity to remain union members in their primary occupations,' he says.
Along with workers at Olympic venues there have been major contributions to the games by a highly unionized police force and public transport, Telstra and energy union members.
Chris Christodoulou says cooperation between the union movement and SOCOG in the making of the Sydney Olympics and Paralympics State Award will ensure that workers are some of the best paid in Olympic history.
'In addition the strategic location of union officials at Olympic venues will ensure workers can take up grievances early so as to avoid unnecessary industrial disputes,' he says.
This contrasts with Atlanta where there was a 400 per cent turnover in staff, jobs were cash in hand and there was a wage explosion in a range of areas. There was a high level of sexual harassment of the workforce, and a lower level of workers rights.
by Bernadette Molomby
The CFMEU made the invitation in a submission lodged this week on Picnic Days and Secret Ballots. The Liberal Government has introduced Bills in the Parliament that would remove Picnic Days from Awards and would require secret ballots before protected strike action.
"Peter Reith told the Parliament that Award Picnic Days are rarely observed. Our submission to the Senate shows clearly that the Award Picnic Day is important to building workers and their families," said John Sutton, National Secretary of the CFMEU Construction & General Division.
The union has responded to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000 with a detailed submission arguing for Picnic Days to remain in Awards.
"If there is a problem with Picnic Days, the Government should allow the independent umpire to decide whether or not they should be removed rather than dictating to the Commission what should and should not be in Awards," said Mr Sutton.
"Building workers normally work six days a week, 10 hours a day. You would think this Government would support the family friendly Award provision for an annual picnic."
Mr. Sutton said the secret ballot proposal was yet another union busting exercise by Peter Reith.
"It is ridiculous for the Government to introduce a process for workers taking protected strike action that is more complicated and involved than the process in place to elect Members of the House of Representatives."
Sandra Cabot, a former call centre worker says:
"I'm so sensitive to noise after working in a call centre and having my head zapped. It's like having shock treatment."
Sandra says that the equipment she was provided with was very old and didn't control the amount of noise coming in. "I'd get a spike (a high pitched shot of noise) which sent me deaf", she says.
"Everyday I would be in agony", she says.
She consulted a doctor who advised her that she had suffered permanent damage to her hearing and advised her to change professions as the condition was caused by the equipment she was using in her employment as a call centre professional.
Sandra has been advised that her condition is irreversible and there is no remedy for it. She continues to suffer symptoms such as severe headaches, soreness in her ears and disorientation.
It has had a devastating effect on her, not just physically but emotionally. "I have lost my confidence as a result", Sandra said.
I have been advised that I am not entitled to any workers' compensation and I am devastated that I am no longer a professional in the workforce. I now feel totally isolated" Sandra said.
Labor Council's safety watchdog, Mary Yaager, is pursuing this issue, and is seeking expert medical and scientific advice in terms of getting the condition recognised as a genuine workers' compensation related condition.
by Rowan Cahill
The bitter dispute, involving about 60 workers, has see-sawed between strikes and lock-outs for almost six months following the collapse of enterprise bargaining processes and company attempts to deunionise the workforce.
The decision to extend the strike follows the breakdown of resolution talks between the unions involved (the AMWU, AWU, CEPU), the ACTU, and Joy representatives last week.
It is understood the talks were making headway until they were stymied by the intervention of Joy's multi-national American owners Harnischfeger Industries Inc.
There have been reports from the picket line of unusual interstate traffic into Joy under the cover of darkness. South Coast Labor Council Secretary Arthur Rorris says there are concerns the company may be recruiting strikebreakers from Victoria and Tasmania. The company has not yet commented on the allegation.
Meanwhile in South Africa where Harnischfeger/Joy has significant interests, the annual conference of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) recently passed a resolution of solidarity with the Moss Vale workers. NUMSA is seeking to increase international pressure on the American multi-national; this could see the International Metalworkers' Federation (Geneva) acting on its June 26 threat to launch an international campaign against Joy.
There is a bitter irony in all of this. For years attempts have been made by a succession of Joy managements to convince Moss Vale workers that Joy is essentially an independent Australian outfit, with the Moss Vale operation part of the local community.
The current dispute has exposed the lie and been a steep learning curve for many on the picket line about the realities of life in the deregulated world of turbo-capitalism.
This learning curve and the sense of betrayal that goes with it, is yet another element fuelling the firm resolve of the Moss Vale picket line.
The survey looked at salaries from 1990 through to 1999. It was conducted by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
The study, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, said that if US workers' pay had kept pace with that of their bosses, they would have averaged $US114,035 ($200,000) last year, instead of $US23,753.
"Worker pay is starting to pick up but executive compensation is in outer space," said Mr Chuck Collins, co-director of United for a Fair Economy. The CEO/worker pay ratio has grown to 475-to-1 from 42-to-1 in 1980, Mr Collins said.
Although he attributes part of the fat-cat pay explosion to stock options, "a big part of why we have runaway pay is our own version of what we accuse the Asians of: crony capitalism."
Mr Collins said that came from too many CEOs sitting on their brethren's boards.
"There's been a breakdown in the accountability chain" from shareholders, to the board, to management, he said. "You get rewarded whether you mess up or not."
Mr Collins worries, too, about the broader social consequences. "Our society undervalues some people's contributions (teachers, public servants) to building a healthy and wealthy society and overvalues others," he said.
(Barron's, Sydney Morning Herald; 4-9-00)
A detailed paper on the changes in wealth distribution in the USA is available at http://www.levy.org/docs/wrkpap/papers/300.html
Go to http://www.inequality.org/facts.html#income to find a wealth of information on such issues in the USA.
In Australia, finding such a detailed analysis of CEO pay is not easy. Some work has been done. Tony Kryger from the Statistics Group at the Federal Parliamentary Library produced a research note < http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1998-99/99rn24.htm> in 1999 using data from Cullen Egan Dell surveys. His study showed an increase in the average executive salaries from $ 112,104 in 1988 70 $237,470 in 1998 plus increases in allowances and benefits from $59,912 to $91,046. Bonuses increased from $12,247 to $59,533. Thus the average total remuneration went from $184,263 to $388,055. Kryger emphasises that the bonus payment figure are conservative estimates and do not take into account the increasing popularity of share options.
Average weekly earnings for full time adult employees in Australia increased in the same time frame from $27,125 to $40,927. Note that average weekly earnings figures include the executive salaries.
A very sad story for CEOs was in Business Review Weekly on 10 March this year. We learn that Australian manufacturing workers were earning only 56.3% of the average American manufacturing worker wage of $US 39,437.
The poor old Aussie executive was much harder done by, receiving only $US518,794, a paltry 38.41% of the US executive average of $US1,350,567, according the Towers Perrin worldwide survey. http://www.brw.com.au/stories/20000310/5037.htm
On a brighter note, the incentive component rose by 36% in 1999 compared to the previous year, and was valued at an average of $US100,000 (still well below the US average of $US450,000) and the total remuneration was up by over 20%.
The World Socialist Web at http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/wage-n20.shtml has good summary showing some pay rates.
Laurie Aarons great little book, Casino Oz (Goanna Publishing) provides a good analysis using ABS data and Rich List figures to show the rise in inequality. Frank Stilwell a few years earlier provided some excellent information in called Income Inequality: who gets what in Australia (Pluto Press).
Terry Lane interviewed Ian Dunlop from the Australian Institute of Company Directors so its interesting to read his attempted justification of the rates these people get paid at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/stories/s67424.htm
by Zoe Reynolds
These are some of the many problems facing women in the maritime industry under discussion at the MUA Victorian Branch Women's Conference held in Melbourne today.
Twenty rank and file workers from the wharves and ships attended the state conference where ACTU president Sharan Burrow was the key-note speaker.
Most women in the maritime industry are employed on the passenger ferry Spirit of Tasmania in traditional female jobs as caterers or at Patrick terminals as stevedore workers, forty employed at Patrick' Webb Dock in Melbourne alone where most hold only casual daily hire jobs.
MUA Assistant National Secretary, Mick O'Leary said "Patrick have quite openly said they see young woman as less likely to want permanent jobs or join a union.
"They think they are less likely to be radical and more likely to take orders but Patrick has been unsuccessful with this strategy." he said.
Delegates at the conference discussed the need to have paid maternity leave, breast-feeding facilities, and paid carers leave provision in enterprise agreements.
MUA Port Botany Wharfie and delegate Sue Gajdos said, "Some may argue that women only make up 2.6% of the union.
"But if we don't make the wharves and ships more attractive to women workers how can we ever recruit more women into the industry and union."
by HT Lee
Unlike able Olympians who are feted with sponsorships from the corporate sector and promises of financial rewards if they win gold, Paralympians have to depend on their families and friends for financial support.
They train as hard as the full-bodied Olympians, won more golds at Alanta but still lack public and corporate recognition. They are indeed the poor cousins of the Olympic movement.
The construction union, the CFMEU has taken up this challenge of righting the wrong by sponsoring three paralympian swimmers--Janelle Falzon, Elezabeth Wright, and Denise Beckwith.
Entertainers Kaye Gordon and Charlie Smith provided first class entrainment.
CFMEU orgainser Tony Papa said: 'Once again we can depend on building workers and in this case the bosses as well to come and support a just course.'
Janelle who won one gold and two bronze medals at Alanta in thanking the building workers, subbies and builders said: 'You don't know how much this mean to us. We had to rely on our parents for financial support. Your generosity is overwhelming.'
The money raised will also go towards helping former building worker Tod Philpott, an amputee marathon runner take part in the New York marathon in November. It will also help pay for the transport costs of Carmelo, a disabled volunteer for Olympic and Paralympic games.
The Paralympians are the true Olympians and they need your support. You can help by buying tickets to see them in action. You can also help financially--contact CFMEU organiser Tony Papa on (02) 9287 9387 or 0419 843 056.
Kiwi troops in Timor are paid less than a third the daily allowance that their Australian colleagues receive and some Kiwi soldiers are talking about going to work for the Aussies.
'Going to work for the Aussies is simply not a solution," NZCTU President Ross Wilson says.
"If the top brass charge their employees with desertion for going to work for Telecom I imagine it would have to be a treason charge if they jump in with the Aussies."
"It is time to set aside the old conventions that prevent rank and file military personnel from advocating their cause and bargaining collectively with their employers," Ross Wilson said.
"The Army is like any other business these days with the top brass imposing tight budgets on wage increases and other improvements in conditions of employment".
"Rank and file soldiers should be able to get the benefit of the new Employment Relations Act by joining the PSA and negotiating collectively with their employers like other New Zealand employees can."
'Rogue elements,' 'unwilling or unable to control the militias,' 'more troops needed'-those were the words used to describe what was happening in East Timor a year ago.
The same words are once again used to describe what is going on in the refugee camps in West Timor including the killings of the three UNHCR foreign aid workers in Atambua on 6 September.
It seems we haven't learn from the mistakes of last year-the authorities and powers to be at that time claimed rouge elements of the Indonesian army (TNI) were assisting the militias and were unwilling or unable to stop or curtail their activities. The same thing is said now.
What utter crap-the militias and the TNI were one and the same then and still is. The TNI if it wanted to, could have prevented the rampage in Atambua against the UNHCR.
Exactly a year ago on 6 September, the militias supported by the TNI, attacked the Turismo Hotel in Dili where fifteen of us foreign journalists (and our East Timorese interpreter) were staying.
Had they wanted to, the militias could have ransacked the hotel and killed us all. But they were prevented by their military commanders because their mission was to pinned us down while they cleared the 2,000 odd refugees at the International Red Cross (ICRC) compound next door to us and the 3,000 odd refugees at Bishop Belo's house next door to the ICRC-the refugees were herded to the wharf to be shipped to Atambua.
That was the start of the forced exodus-all told over 250,000 refugees were forced into West Timor. Many of those refugees are still there to this day, a year later.
Its time we stop the pretence. Its time to put pressure on the Indonesian military establishment. The world community must give them the ultimatum to disarm the militias and allow the 90,000 refugees still in West Timor the freedom to choose whether to stay or to return to East Timor.
If they refused then the world community must cut off all aid, contacts and military supplies to them.
At the same time, the Indonesian government must also be told if the military establishment refuses to act then the government will cut off their money supply. Failing to take this cause of action would result in money supply to Indonesia being cut off.
HT Lee
by talks to Noel Hester
|
With the World Economic Forum on next week, globalisation is in the spotlight again. Tell us where the CFMEU stands.
We're not opposed to globalisation. The trade union movement has always been a very strong proponent of internationalism, which is essentially I suppose a form of globalisation. We are not opposed to people having access to better communications, better transport, and better trade.
What we are opposed to is a form of globalisation which doesn't have a social conscience and which has no rules and regulations, and which favours only trans-national corporations. And that only favours the industrialised nations and leaves developing countries completely out of the benefits that come from improvements in all those areas.
Some of our members have been exposed to international trade and rely upon industries that are involved in international trade to a very, very large extent. Particularly our mining people. About 70% of our product is put into the international marketplace. We've had a pretty strong view about what ought to happen and we have been very vocal on issues relating to trade, particularly in minerals.
So we are not opposed to the World Economic Forum meeting.
You have been pioneers of international campaigning......
Sure. And we would be very critical of the business community if they told us where and when we could have world trade union meetings. But we see the World Economic Forum meeting taking place as an ideal opportunity for us to continue our campaign for a greater commitment to social issues from business and from governments.
We think the Economic Forum provides us with an opportunity to do as workers in other countries have done. Particularly when we see what happened in the United States and what workers are doing in other countries about the neglect of social issues.
Do you see it as an opportunity to network with other organisations in the community as well?
One of the things that we have become very committed to is networking and we believe that only with the united community voice will we be able to make politicians understand that their first responsibility is to improve the life of their citizens - and it is not to build wealth for already very wealthy individuals, and institutions and companies.
We are very happy that a multitude of organisations and community groups have come together to voice a similar concern about people being left out of the equation when it comes to the current form of globalisation.
We have been quite active. Here in NSW our NSW branch has essentially been sponsoring and chairing the meetings of groups of activists who will be attending activities outside the World Economic Forum and we see that those contacts can only strengthen the general move to make sure that we have a more caring society.
With those protests that went on in Seattle last year, and now another groundswell here in Australia, do you see a sea change of community feelings?
I don't think there is any doubt about that. There is no question that it has already affected labour here in Australia because the Labor Party has changed their very strong opposition to having any form of labour rights introduced into the agenda of the World Trade Organisation. Supporting labour rights is now firmly on the agenda.
I think we are also seeing that in the current debate in the Presidential Election in the United States, and we are also seeing more and more people become interested in socially responsible investment. So there is a whole host of ethical issues that are more in focus now as a result of the protests that are taking place, with enormous growth in support for social issues;- - concerns about communities; health; education.
There is a goal I suppose to harness this in some sort of political way?
I actually think that contrary to what is being said about this thing by conservative forces - that it is just a big bunch of ratbags and that they are disorganised - that we are seeing some of the best organised activities and campaigns that certainly I have experienced in the 30 odd years that I have been in the trade union movement. I think it is one of the most refreshing and invigorating, exciting approaches that I have seen.
I have only just got to think of our recent experience with the Rio Tinto campaign. Here is an issue which started off from our point of view with a dispute with a company here in Australia which dealt with freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain, which has been supported very enthusiastically by unionists from many, many countries. In fact from all countries where Rio Tinto operates. They have come together in a form which has been really challenging to the company. They've supported new initiatives where trade unions were able to challenge directors on their own home territory - in the Board Room - with very substantial shareholder support on issues such as corporate governance and labour rights.
Tell us about this strategy of taking it to the boardroom
It is a strategy that has been there before, but we have probably lacked the support and enthusiasm that was necessary to make it successful. Often it is the market that determines how the company reacts to various financial and economic pressures. So if the market sees a company that is very ruthless and is cost cutting, performing well, then they will reward them and the share price goes up. But if the market sees that community reaction to ruthless cost cutting, job-shedding, no social conscience, disregard for the community, is not received very well, then they will punish the companies.
So this is where that influence that we have on companies is now coming more into focus. Particularly now when we are seeing huge superannuation funds and pension funds looking for investments, and where workers have some control over them. You are seeing workers using their own capital to get a more friendly - a more responsible - a more ethical approach.
How successful have you been with Rio Tinto? Does it have its limitations, that sort of approach?
Yes. I think that it is not an approach that can guarantee success. You need to engage in all of your normal campaigning activities, and that includes industrial campaigning, community campaigning as well as this sort of corporate campaigning. Proxy battles; shareholder battles - are just one of the part of the arsenal.
How successful it has been? Well the mere fact that we were able to get those resolutions onto the agenda was quite a significant achievement. The fact that the directors voted unanimously, or recommended a unanimous rejection of the resolutions, was not surprising. But the fact that we were still, in the face of that unanimous recommendation, able to achieve 20% shareholder support for our first resolution on corporate governance, was a huge slap in the face for them. I don't know how to judge this because we have never been involved in it before, but others who have been involved in these sorts of campaigns - particularly the Americans - were astounded that we were able to get 17.5% in support of better labour rights. They were absolutely astounded by that.
So based on other people's judgement, and based on the fact that the directors unanimously recommended against the resolutions and we got that large vote - you have to say it was an overwhelming success.
Now, I wouldn't like to say that we could deliver on that again, because Rio Tinto was a fairly unique target for us. The more we dug, the more enemies we found Rio Tinto actually had., I think it has been one of the more ruthless companies on the international scene.
But you're suggesting they can be isolated.
Yes. There is no question about that. Some of the comments that were made at the shareholders meeting were extremely interesting. We had for example, at the meeting in London, a person from the British shareholders association who said they were inclined to support both resolutions, however, they normally did not vote against a unanimous recommendation of directors. And they said also that they thought that the directors of this Board were relatively good directors, however, they pleaded with the company to again consider the subject of the resolutions. I think that was a fairly significant comment being made by the shareholders association.
The shareholders association in Australia supported the resolution. So it really shows that there is the opportunity to influence capital in terms of some of these issues, provided you are given the opportunity to get out there and state your argument. In many cases major financial institutions don't want to know you. If you say you are from the trade union movement they believe that you ought to be looking after conditions at the workplace and leave economic decisions to capital.
The idea of economic democracy is alien to them?
Yes it is a bit alien to them. Some of these people who are making decisions on investment and recommending investment strategies, really don't have much notion of human rights or ethical behaviour.
Are they shocked at the idea that unions can organise on an international basis?
I think it has been a big shock for them. In fact there has been a fairly subtle debate taking place in Australia since the activities of Rio Tinto were undertaken. We have seen some comments from Stan Wallis that maybe it is too easy for shareholder activism to corner particular issues at shareholders meetings.
Their initial reaction is to make them more secret and less accountable?
Yes. Less accountable and more secret and more difficult to get shareholders' issues - issues that concern large numbers of shareholders - up onto the agenda at meetings.
What role have new technologies played in this campaigning?
A fabulous role. And this is one of the areas that I think trade unions have very much benefited from in terms of globalisation. The globalisation of the media; of telecommunications; of information technology - has been things that we have grabbed enthusiastically. The International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers Union, has a strategy of developing workers' networks throughout multinational corporations.
In the past it has been very difficult for us to communicate. We had to rely upon faxes and the old telex machine, and telephone calls at different times through different time zones. All this made it pretty difficult for us. But e-mail has made it very easy for us to communicate.
And the other thing is that electronic translation is also making it easier for us to communicate. In the past, if we were putting together a document which dealt with specific issues and strategies and participation in campaigns we generally had to go out and get professionals to translate and interpret the message - and that would take considerable resources and time.
Now we actually have electronic translation and so you can send a message off which will be translated electronically and it will produce about 95% accuracy. So information technology has been great for us, although we have to find the resources to make sure that our members in developing countries are able to get access fairly cheaply to that sort of information and we are moving along those lines as well.
Do you see an international union body like the ICEM playing a bigger role in your industries?
Yes. The campaign that we had against Rio Tinto I think was one of the campaigns that grabbed the imagination of a lot of people and a lot of organisations. It was the first campaign where we had national federations coming on board with the ACTU; with the British TUC; and with the AFL-CIO. They all joined the campaign which was essentially being run by the ICEM and the CFMEU jointly. Because it was an international campaign obviously we had to use our international organisation but as the campaign got underway we had national federations coming on board to participate. It was very interesting the way we did that and we are going to have a workshop shortly to see how we can fast track that sort of support for campaigns.
Sure, the international trade union secretariats can organise within their sectorial coverage, but if you really want to have the sort of punch there - the power - the oomph - you have to involve the national federations.
What problems have there been in international action by unions?
Obviously the problem that we had in the past was that we were divided by the cold war, and deliberately divided by the cold war. There is much anecdotal evidence that plenty of money was available provided you supported a particular political ideology.
Now, that has dried up for both sides. I am not going to be critical of one side or the other, but it is the best thing that has happened for us because in terms of say, our mining sector, we have almost everyone from all the different political backgrounds, involved in our mining sector and we have been quite successful in making sure that we focus on the issues that are most important to our people. In addition to that of course, the communication issue has been a problem for us in the past and we are taking advantage of new technology and trying to reform the organisations so they are more campaign focussed. They are the issues that plagued us in the past.
Are you optimistic about the future of the movement?
I am. I am quite optimistic about it. I read that Peter Reith is being considered for a change of portfolio, and I think that that is a pretty good sign. Even though they say the trade union movement continues to decline in numbers we still have more than 2 million members and there is no other organisation in Australia - political or religious - that has 2 million dues paying members.
by Neale Towart
|
It remains an example of the way the police and the State act against those seen as outside the political fold. The story is well told by Ross Fitzgerald in his biography, The People's Champion, Fred Paterson: Australia's only Communist Party Member of Parliament (Uni. Of Qld Press, 1997).
The constant complaints about violent protesters also seem to signal the intentions of the police towards the S11. The Seattle protests are called violent in the Australian press, with the violence all blamed on the protesters, never mind that police are prepared with riot gear. Paterson's bashing showed who were the violent ones.
The Qld government was pursuing a low wage policy at the time in an attempt to attract investment to Queensland. As usual in this period, the rail and coal industries were to the forefront of action against the government policy in attempts to gain wage justice. Skill margins were a key issue, and the dispute was the first successful post war campaign.
Premier Hanlon had "turned the clock back 36 years in dealing with strikers and peaceful citizens" according to ARU activist Vic Daddow. Picketing was initially legal in the disputes of the time, and Paterson, as a lawyer, was mainly involved in advising picketers on their rights and seeing that the police did not use illegal methods in dealing with picketers.
This was under a State of Emergency declared by the ALP in February 1948 (the ALP beat Bjelke-Petersen to this tactic). Fred did this job so successfully despite the provocation the government and police subjected picketers to that the Parliament then introduced legislation aimed at curbing his law maintaining behaviour!
Hanlon said, in a moment of rare candour, that the Industrial Law Amendment Bill "might have been called the Paterson Bill."
To turn the public against the strikers, who soon included waterside workers amongst their number, the red bogey was invoked by the politicians, with Hanlon claiming Australians were "sick to death of commos. The people have 'had' them and their work".
ALP Prime Minister Chifley backed the Qld government action, refusing unemployment benefits to the strikers.
Fred defended picketers who had been arrested under the new laws. Police attempted on several occasions to violently break up pickets. One of the railway unions voted to return to work at this stage but the more militant unions stayed firm. The St Patrick's Day protest brought things to a head.
The peaceful march was quickly turned into a violent melee by the police. Some of the plain clothes detectives had been drinking before the attack, even though it was before 9.00 am.
Fred Paterson and Max Julius, a solicitor who represented many unionists, were acting as observers on the footpath when the police attacked. Fred' s report on the event stated:
"I saw a plain clothes detective bashing into one of the members of the procession, with a baton. So I went over and called out to him to stop. He took no notice of me so I decided that I would take notes to refresh my memory. I had just lifted my pen to write on my legal brief which I had in my hand, when I was struck down by a policeman's baton, and taken unconscious to the ambulance".
Premier Hanlon's justification of the police violence included reference to the fact of Paterson and Julius carrying legal pads and pens which somehow proved that the march was intended to be one ending in violence.
Paterson, in Brisbane in 1976, admitted that he knew the policeman (Jack Mahony) he approached to be a violent man, and said that he was lacking in prudence in approaching him "You don't stop violent coppers by appealing to them not to hit."
The Brisbane Telegraph that day reported the violence in detail, and published photos. However the next day the Courier Mail had shrunk the clash down to a 45 second incident with the police breaking up a procession of 145 strikers.
Premier Hanlon claimed that "I have reports from all quarters of their [police] tolerance , patience and care in handling people during this difficult period."
15,000 people demonstrated against the St Patrick's Day bashings two days later.
No charges were laid against the policeman who was clearly identified by Julius and Paterson. Police reports claimed the communists were behind the whole organisation of the affair. This in the context of the cold war atmosphere that was fast developing worldwide.
Can S11 protestors expect the same treatment?
Footnote: Bill Hayden, joined the Qld Police Force in 1953, and in the mid 50s was stationed with Jack Mahony. In his autobiography Hayden describes how his Senior Sargeant (Mahony) was "explaining to some detectives, with evident gusto, smacking the billet resoundingly against the palm of his hand, how he had used the deadly implement on the "Commie" Fred Patterson (sic)".
Hayden never reported this matter at the time, or later when he had left the police force and was a Federal Parliamentarian.
by Rob Durbridge
We should protest the secretive and elitist agenda of the WEF and expose the policies and laws they are implementing. Education is not a commodity and should be excluded from commercial agreements along with other cultural, land, health and social rights.
The WEF is a meeting of the Chief Executives of the world's biggest 1,000 corporations. Unlike other global bodies the WEF is not established by governments. It has no legal obligations to the environment, culture or the democratic processes of anybody other than to shareholders in rich countries. It has been crucial in driving trade and investment liberalisation, privatisation and anti-unionism in recent decades. The key reason for the Melbourne meeting (apart from a convenient all-expenses paid ramp to the Olympics) is to deal with the crisis caused in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by the abandonment of the "new millennium" trade liberalisation round in Seattle last November and to discuss the Asian economic woes.
We are told that the WEF is meeting to discuss global unfairness and poverty and that there is no alternative to globalisation. But we expect to have a say in these matters through our elected governments on how this is to occur. Do we really believe the WEF will discuss how to make the world a nicer place? The job of the CEO is to increase the profit of the firm, and often their packages are linked to just that. The world economy is profitable, but it is increasingly unequal.
At the invitation of the Business Council of Australia representing the 100 biggest Australian firms, the WEF meeting is, in effect, a selective and closed body which exerts enormous economic and political influence in the world. It is the face of the new world order. As such the WEF operates to influence the policies and programs of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), World Bank and International Monetary Fund which can ignore, override and punish democratic governments using international treaties with trade and penalties for teeth.
GATs and Teachers, Students, Allied Educators, Parents, Grandparents...Half the Population
What has all this to do with educators, students and their families...all up half the population?
We know that WTO deals with tariffs and trade in goods, so we are used to manufacturing workers and farmers being upset. They were joined in Seattle by environmentalists and labour rights activists. But it is only now that we learn that the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) also applies to education. The WTO has made decisions which could have the effect of mandating global education corporations to compete with government and private education institutions, and to demand the same subsidies we give private bodies, on pain of penalties and trade retribution.
While the GATS principle of "national treatment" can mean that public systems are outside the scope of the agreement, even if privatised, competition from subsidised global corporations could effectively residualise and marginalise these systems. This is a consequence of secondary, higher and other education services being included in the list of GATS in Marrakesh in 1994 and further negotiations conducted in February 2000. Did the governments of the day know or think to ask about the implications? Did they tell us? What is the current or alternative government policy? The answers are all unknown.
The New Zealand government mistakenly argued that GATS had no impact on national education policies, believing that GATS meant global opportunities for their education entrepreneurs, but then adopted privatisation and deregulation policies which are the prerequisites for loss of control in favour of transnational corporations. When the unions in NZ tried to get information about it, they were met with the Official Information Act which prevented access to details until it was too late for public scrutiny.
If GATS continues down the pash being urged on it by the WEF, Australian public schools, colleges and universities could well face competition from transnational education providers that Australian taxpayers are forced to subsidise.
Some will see all of this as far-fetched radical rhetoric. But at the behest of international financial bodies many developing countries have already been forced to cut back and privatise their education systems. Australia is an exporter and importer of education services which brings us into the scope of the GATS, and the potential is also there for corporations to compete for a slice of the $30 billion per year spent by the Commonwealth, states and private fee-payers on pre-school, school, TAFE and higher education.
As if we did not have enough problems with the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) and the new Kemp funding agenda of fund-shifting to the private sector at the public sector's expense! These policies can now be seen as a key element in opening up the national "market" in education as a precursor to building a vast privatised international market in the provision of education services.
"Rollback" to the "New Millennium" of Global Education Markets
Article XIX of GATS spells out that the agreement is not static but is a process of successive negotiations directed to "achieving a progressively higher level of liberalisation." Under the "standstill rule" GATS prevents limits being imposed (read regulation of standards) without compensation to affected provider countries and under the "rollback rule" the progressive lifting of restrictions on trade in education services is projected.
The prize of course is bigger than Australia...it amounts to what Education International (the world's largest non-government body representing 60 million education unionists including the AEU) calculates to be a thousand billion (US) dollars worth of services, more than 50 million teachers and a billion students. Suddenly education is a commodity in a market and a huge prize for predators looking for opportunities...and that satellite dish on the outback school (worthwhile in itself) represents an access point for exploitation.
We are familiar with the UN and International Labor Organisation Conventions to which Australia is a signatory and which provide us with a framework for international good citizenship. However, the UN is a body of worthwhile policies with little or no capacity to enforce them.
In an era where new communications and information technologies will provide huge opportunities for distance delivery of education these policies may be even more far-reaching. For example, a company called World School has been floated which will employ English-speaking teachers on-line 24 hours a day in five different countries to be accessed by those who can afford them. University of California UCLA Extension School caters for students in 44 US states and eight other countries. Let us not be sanguine about the potential for global education corporations delivering on-line without regard to the needs, decisions or culture of the countries concerned.
The Australian Education Union is making a submission to the Senate Enquiry on the WTO to argue that the Australian government must limit the scope of the WTO. Further, the AEU will be asking the ALP and other political parties to define their views in the lead-up to the next Federal election. Strategies to deal with the threat posed by global corporations to a wide range of community interests cannot develop unless public knowledge of the issues becomes more widespread. The protests against the WEF should be directed to achieve that.
by Peter Conway
|
'Globalisation' has been characterised in many different ways. The ILO describes globalisation as - firstly, the heightening of competitiveness as a result of the liberalisation of trade and financial regimes alongside the integration of markets. And secondly, rapid change in the area of information technology.
Some describe globalisation merely in a technical sense as the "death of distance" through falling communication and transport costs that facilitate international production networks and enlarged trading areas. These allow firms to exploit international cost differentials through fragmentation and relocation of production and global sourcing of materials.
Certainly New Zealand has high hopes of maintaining the advantage of tranquility that distance provides, while minimising the costs and missed opportunities due to our remoteness.
A major industrialist has commented that:
Since NZ was opened up to the forces of globalisation, we have performed dismally, both economically and socially. (Hugh Fletcher)
He urged a focus on not only the spirit of individual entrepreneurship but also the "power of co-operative endeavour".
Others describe globalisation in terms of the new requirements for rules to ensure positive outcomes. Ken Douglas, in his role as President of the NZCTU said on 1 July 1999 in a speech entitled "Free Trade in the New Millennium: Globalisation with a Human Face" that:
"...while the phenomena of global economic integration is crashing through the national barriers of sovereign states it needs to be recognised that it is essentially man-made. It is demonstrating, sometimes with quite disastrous consequences in human terms, that it requires rules and standards, structure and strategies, for harnessing its positive potential, and mechanisms to impose compliance to address the recognition of standards of behaviour that reflect equity and fairness".
ILO Director-General Juan Somavia says bluntly that "globalisation has yet to pass the test of social legitimacy". Jane Kelsey sees globalisation, not as inevitable in all its forms but subject to significant opposition. She observes that:
"Globalisation as ideology is the grand vision, a meta-narrative that imagines an interdependent and self-regulating global economy where goods, capital and ideas flow freely, irrespective of national borders, social formations, cultures, or politics. Globalisation in practice describes a highly contested process where the competing interests of people, companies, tribes, governments, and other groupings overlap and collide; alliances form; accommodations and more drastic revisions are made; and new contradictions arise."
In the New Zealand context, the process of globalisation is contested, but our recent history over the last 15 years, has seen a relatively weak response to a policy platform of market deregulation. This platform has made New Zealand vulnerable to the negative effects of globalisation, while painfully slow at realising the benefits. We are in danger of being simply a "branch economy".
Major structural problems in the economy
There are very many economic problems in the economy. But these go back a number of years. NZ has a huge current account deficit of 8% of annual GDP and overseas debt of 106% of GDP. There are structural economic problems that will take many years to reverse.
There is a "lost generation" of workers including those laid off in the mass redundancies of the late 1980s, as well as those young unskilled workers of the late 1990s in highly casualised work on individual and sub-standard contracts.
The economy has been efficient at making sure the sun sets on unprofitable companies but ineffective at helping the sun rise for new firms. 1984 per capita income stood at 95% of OECD average - by 1992 it was down to 80.6% and by 1995 it rose to 87%.
The NZCTU believes that we have suffered economically due to the slavish adherence to economic fundamentalism. In the decades before economic rationalism came to dominate policy, the New Zealand economy had followed the ups and downs of the economic cycles experienced by the rest of the world - but with two qualifications. The commodity base of production and the dependence of such key imports as oil meant that New Zealand was more vulnerable than most other countries to external shocks and to commodity price shifts.
This meant that the loss of markets when Britain entered the EEC in 1968, and the oil price shocks of 1974/75 and 1979 caused greater adjustment in New Zealand than in many other countries. On the other hand, the commodity price boom of 1972/73 produced a more spectacular expansion than in many countries.
The process of economic restructuring was predicated on an assumption that short-term pain would produce massive gain. The reality is that the policy programme created neither stable conditions nor better growth rates.
The restructuring period covered two business cycles. The reforms essentially "parked up" the New Zealand economy so we were outside the upward phase of the world business cycle in the late 1980s. There was zero growth for about 6 years from 1986 to 1992. In terms of real gross domestic product per capita, New Zealand has fallen from being ranked fourth in the OECD in 1960 to fifteenth in 1993. GNP per capita from 1984-99 was 0.2% per annum on average compared with 0.6% over the 1969-84 period. In addition, in 1960 labour's share of GDP was around 60% whereas now it is closer to 50%. Real wages in 1997 were lower than in 1974.
If the New Zealand economy had grown at its previous trend rate, or matched Australia over the same period, output would be a third higher than it is now. The previous CTU Economist Peter Harris noted that:
"the amounts of personal and public income associated with this are staggering. At current tax rates the extra income would have generated an extra $11 billion of tax revenue per annum - enough to halve net government debt, or double spending on health and education".
In fact, this scenario was made even worse by the National Government's programme of tax cuts which were not only damaging to state sector capacity, but also significantly weighted towards high incomes. One-third of the income gains from the tax cuts of 1996 and 1998 went to those in the highest twenty per cent income earners.
At the end of this restructuring, New Zealand is still an unstable and vulnerable economy that has retained an unhealthy dependence on particular economic factors rather than a broad-based diversity of strengths.
The dependence we had before the late 1960s was on preferential access to the British market. In the 1970s there was an unhealthy dependence on commodity prices. After the oil shocks it shifted to dependence on government subsidies to producers. Now we have an unhealthy dependence on the expansion of private consumption as the primary growth engine. This was exacerbated by the acceptance of the theory of dead-weight losses through taxation. The resulting tax cuts boosted consumption. The reduced Government capacity constrained investment in infrastructure, skills and industry development. Our vulnerability was apparent during the NZ drought in 1997/8 combined with the Asian crisis although some ability was shown to switch markets.
In the last 6 months there has been the start of a turn around with an emerging growth in exports. But the reliance on private consumption fuelled by high levels of private debt persists. Household savings were positive until 1998. Household debt as a proportion of household annual income has risen dramatically from 48% in 1990 to 92% by 1999. Net worth of NZ households declined by 1.3% over the June quarter (mainly due to falling house prices and rising debt levels). This is the fourth quarterly decline over the last 5 quarters.
Another key problem that has emerged is the relatively low level of Research and Development expenditure. Total Research and Development was 1.1% of GDP in 1997/98 compared with the OECD average of 2.1%. It is indicative of a "cost-cutting" rather than "innovation" perspective as a driver of economic growth.
In addition, our economic sovereignty has been weakened by the privatisation programme. Since 1987, 40 state-owned commercial assets have been sold for a total of $19.1 billion. This included the Bank of New Zealand, Petrocorp, New Zealand Steel, Postbank, Shipping Corporation, Air New Zealand, State Insurance, Tourist Hotel Corporation, Telecom, State Railways, and State forests.
As at August 1999 these assets had an estimated value of $35.7 billion, nearly double the original sale price. Remaining Government commercial assets are worth below $5 billion. The privatisation has been a huge windfall for overseas investors. Just over 79%, or $13.1 billion, of the increase in value has gone to offshore interests. The net gain to domestic investors has been just $1.9 billion. Bryan Gaynor notes that:
"in the final analysis many of our best and biggest companies have been sold to offshore interests, yet New Zealand's total overseas debt has risen from $46 billion in 1989 to $102 billion".
The debt is now at $109.1 billion which is 106% of GDP. Gaynor is also extremely critical of the Government for not using the proceeds from asset sales to either invest in new sunrise industries or for dedicated investment funds to finance future pension or superannuation liabilities.
Telecom is one example of a sale that was significantly underpriced. In June 1990 it was sold for $4.25 billion. Since then Telecom has paid $5.5 billion in dividends and its total value has risen to $16.6 billion. In late 1989, there was 16,265 staff at Telecom. By 1998 this had reduced to 8,136.
In December 1986, many of New Zealand's largest companies were Government owned and the sharemarket was more than 95% owned by New Zealand based companies, managed funds and individuals. However, overseas ownership of the New Zealand stock market rose from 19% in December 1989 to 61% in August 1997. In the last 2 years foreign ownership has declined to 55%, as international investors became impatient with New Zealand's poor economic performance.
It is also significant to note that the New Zealand sharemarket was subject to considerable deregulation in the post-1984 period. Many believe that this is a contributing reason for the more drastic impact in New Zealand (40% greater cut in value) compared with other countries of the 1987 crash and the slower recovery.
Manufacturing was hit very hard by the post-1984 policies. As the late Bryan Philpott noted:
"many reasonably competitive manufacturing industries making exportable and importable products were suddenly exposed to the full rigors of world competition, and have either closed down or emigrated to Australia. Now when we could well do with such industries to help solve our current structural problems they no longer exist"
The post-1984 programme included: the removal of import licensing; removal of exchange regulations and deregulation of finance markets; reduced tariffs; removal of export incentives, and; repeal of Economic Stabilisation Act. The effective rate of assistance for manufacturing fell from around 37% in 1985/86 to around 19% in 1989/90.
Under these circumstances it is no surprise that between 1986 and 1991 manufacturing sector employment fell by 20.2%. Lingering problems in the manufacturing sector have included: the dominance of simply transformed manufactures in the export mix; lack of penetration of northern hemisphere markets, dependence on Australia for sales. The sector has also been disadvantaged by the harsh monetary environment, uneven industry assistance and weak infrastructural supports.
by Greg Combet
|
Since assuming the role of ACTU Secretary in February this year, I have reflected a lot on the challenges facing leaders in all areas of Australian public life. Tonight I would like to sketch for you the challenges as I see them, and a number of the policy responses of the ACTU.
The circumstances I face as Secretary of the ACTU in the year 2000 are quite different from those that faced my predecessor Bill Kelty, when he took office in 1983.
That was before the dollar was floated, and before the economy was opened to the world. It was before the deregulation of markets for many products and services, and it predated the exposure of government utilities and services to competition and privatisation.
It was a very different world indeed - with a centralised wage fixing system and a level of union membership which stood at 50% of the workforce.
None of which is to suggest that I pine for the past. Quite the contrary. For the changes of the past 15 years have brought much prosperity.
Over the past eight or nine years in particular, Australia has experienced a dramatic period of economic expansion and structural change. On some indicators we have out-performed the United States economy, which is recording the longest period of economic growth in its history.
In Australia we continue to chart an extraordinary combination of GDP growth, productivity advances, employment growth and low inflation. Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual average rate of 4.4% over the past five years.
Profits are strong, and private investment has increased by an average of 8.5% per year for five years.
Tremendous change is occurring - easily the equal in significance of the transition, many years ago, from an agricultural and resources based economy to an industrial economy - only much more rapid.
We are now well advanced in the transition to a service based economy. And there have been dramatic advances in technology and communications - it is instructive to bear in mind that the Internet is only nine years old. Indeed, when I arrived at the ACTU seven years ago we did not have computers.
Our society is also more outward looking. It has a cultural richness and social diversity of which we can be proud.
So there are many positive elements of the changes that are taking place.
But Australia is also a country where there are now, more than ever, winners and losers. We may be proud of our egalitarian values, but in reality the society is increasingly divided. Many people are not sharing in the benefits of our prosperity.
The divide between city and country is wider, the divide between rich and poor is worse, and opportunities in education and employment are declining for those in low-income groups and in many of the regions.
School retention rates in some States are actually falling. Australia's level of investment in skills for the future, as a proportion of GDP, is amongst the lowest in the OECD. Funding for research and development has fallen.
While the top 20% of income earners are taking home 48% of gross weekly income, the poorest 20% are left with less than 4% to take home to their families.
There are over 700,000 Australian children living in poverty. A shocking figure in a country that prides itself on giving everyone a fair go. And the profile of child poverty in Australia is also changing.
A recent study by University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling 'The Changing Face Of Child Poverty In Australia' suggests that one in four of the additional 100,000 Australian children who have fallen into poverty since 1995 live in families where the major source of income is not social security, but wages and salaries.
That's right, the fastest growing area of child poverty in Australia is amongst the children of working families.
This is not so surprising when you consider that almost 10% of the Australian adult workforce still earn $10 or less an hour. The gross annual salary of a full time adult worker who earns ten dollars an hour is just $19,700 a year.
Draw a line at just $12 an hour and more than 20% of the adult workforce fall under it. In some of the fastest growing areas of the economy like retail and hospitality the number of adults earning $12 or less an hour is higher than 35%.
What these figures point to is the emergence in Australia of a genuine American-style working poor.
This reality, this widening divide in income and opportunity, is the not so pretty side of the 'new economy'. And it all has big implications for policy makers and leaders of government, business and unions. I will speak about the union response in a moment, but first I would like to make some comments about the role of government.
For it is government that must take principal responsibility during times of rapid change and growth to make sure that everyone shares the benefits - that the society is guided by fair and just outcomes and that people are not left behind.
I see this as the key challenge for the political leadership of this country. I believe that the Australian people hold a similar view. It is a challenge that the political leadership cannot afford to ignore. Ask Jeff Kennett.
I think that the essential elements of a government strategy to meet this challenge must include the following:
I believe that the Howard Government is failing in each of these three areas.
Firstly, it deliberately creates division, not a sense of community. It relies on wedge politics, rather than good policies, to maintain its political edge. The strategy towards One Nation is the most telling example. A more recent example occurred in August when the Government orchestrated a public debate about the use of IVF technology. And for what ends - to divert attention from the alternative political platform coming out of the ALP National Conference.
On the back of that has come the refusal to accept international scrutiny of important areas including indigenous rights, industrial relations and racial discrimination. And now John Howard doesn't want Australian women to be able to complain to the United Nations about gender discrimination.
As Malcolm Fraser recently pointed out, it appears that Australia ratified international treaties only so that we can apply them to the rest of the world and not have them applied to us. Fair-minded Liberals are ashamed.
Second, the Government favours one group over another. It does not seek to include all areas of interest in the society. To use industrial relations as an example, this is without doubt the most partisan Federal Government we have seen in this country. Unlike previous conservative governments, Howard and Reith are simply not interested in resolutions.
They never call on parties to negotiate and they don't want the umpire involved. They just side with the employer every time. As one member of the Industrial Relations Commission recently observed, under Peter Reith industrial relations has become "ritualised warfare where only the weak get hurt."
Just imagine the outcry if Labor behaved in such a partisan way.
Third, the Howard Government has failed to articulate a vision. It has failed to impart a sense of national direction. When you pause to reflect upon the course of the last four years it is genuinely difficult to define the ambition of the Government other than in tax reform and union busting.
The occasional appeals to the business community to behave in a paternalistic manner as part of some vague social coalition are hollow.
I think that the message here is clear. In times of such rapid change government must articulate a clear and unequivocal commitment to creating a fair and just society. There must be a commitment to manage the process of change in a way that maintains and builds social cohesion.
And there must be recognition that there is more than just the economy - as important as it is. A successful society, especially one built around employment in services, requires investment in education, health care, technology and infrastructure, as well as respect for people's rights.
Taking education as an example, a National Information Technology and Training Task Force has estimated that Australian industry will need an additional 180,000 IT specialists in the next three years, 75% of who will need university degree or vocational training.
How will this be achieved? Where is the sense of community, the sense of purpose driven by government that will satisfy this demand? Where is the strategy that will ensure a fighting chance for the many regions which are at risk of further marginalisation?
Unions look at the current climate through this prism - conscious of the advantages and disadvantages of the changes which are taking place - and mindful of our long-standing commitment to fairness and justice.
Unions play a vital role in our society. Our fundamental goal is to improve living standards and the quality of life of the working people of this country. And we have a fantastic track record.
But economic change is exacting a substantial toll on unions in the form of diminishing membership, and a substantial toll on many working people.
It has demanded a reassessment of union strategy in the two most fundamental areas - union organisation, and our aspirations for improvements in pay and employment standards.
I will deal with each in turn. But to put the challenges for unions in some context, allow me to emphasise this - for the better part of one hundred years unions relied upon the twin pillars of tariff protection and centralised compulsory arbitration.
We now have a substantially open economy and a decentralised bargaining system. Coupled with these changes has been a collapse in employment in areas that traditionally had high levels of union membership.
These are dramatic institutional changes - changes that demand a radical shift in union thinking and the allocation of union resources.
More than ever, union campaigns have had to move out of the industrial tribunals and into tens of thousands of workplaces around the country. Where once we needed court room advocates we now need workplace campaigners.
But as ACTU Secretary let me assure you of this. We are determined to adjust to these new circumstances. We are determined to maintain and improve our strength and effectiveness. And we are determined to take our place in the debate about the future.
Because unions have a vital and continuing role to play in ensuring justice and fairness in the workplace and the society. And for those of you inclined to disbelief, I remind you that we represent over 1.8 million people, that we determine the wages and conditions of employment for many more, and that we retain considerable industrial and political strength. The waterfront dispute demonstrated that.
Last year the ACTU released a report, unions@work, that set out a program of organisational objectives so that we can meet the challenges ahead.
The report argues for the revitalisation of unions by focusing on four key areas:
Strength in the workplace - Boosting workplace organisation and union education so that workplace union representatives can play a greater role in bargaining, recruiting and union activity at the workplace.
Growth in new areas - Investing in the recruitment and organisation of new members in the largely under-unionised growth areas of the economy.
Technology for the times - Using information technology and new servicing methods such as call centres to more effectively and more efficiently communicate and meet membership service expectations.
A strong union voice - In the information age, competition for people's attention is fierce. To be serious about growing, to be serious about giving working people a voice, unions will need to significantly enhance their media, communication and campaigning capacities.
This is a strategy about building from the ground up.
In the months after I launched unions@work in August 1999, I travelled the country introducing and explaining the report to union members, officials and leaders. I conducted more than thirty presentations at some twenty-six unions and trades and labour councils and was overwhelmed by the commitment of my colleagues to a program of change.
And it's not just talk of change. Many unions around the country at both a national and state branch level are making the shift to a new way of operating in a very comprehensive fashion.
To give you just one example, the South Australian Branch of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union moved last year to adopt most of the recommendations of an operational review conducted by the ACTU.
This meant re-training all union staff and a high proportion of workplace delegates. It involved a complete overhaul of union expenditure to ensure that the commitment to renewal was backed up by a budget and staff.
A process of detailed planning in each targeted growth area has been developed, with the involvement of existing union members. The number one focus in the first twelve months of the program is not to recruit new members but to double the number of workplace delegates - developing them as workplace campaigners.
They have held two very large delegate's conferences to take the debate about change to members - to renew democratic participation in the union.
Many unions are successfully doing similar things - drawing on the unions@work report.
A well planned, focused and properly resourced organising strategy in Sydney and Melbourne has seen consistent net gains in union membership amongst workers in five star hotels over the past 12 months. In recent weeks there have been unprecedented rallies of hotel workers in Sydney, mostly women of non-English speaking backgrounds, all dependent on minimum wages, demanding better pay.
The Transport Workers Union's public campaign with long-haul owner-drivers has begun to crack an industry once considered impenetrable to union organisation.
Unions are experimenting with new campaign methods. We have successfully piloted an international union shareholder campaign against Rio Tinto. We are developing Internet and e-mail tactics to accompany more traditional forms of union bargaining pressure.
When we were overseas preparing the unions@work report we became convinced that these changes are not only necessary but that they can succeed.
In Britain, after many years of hard decline, the level of union membership actually grew in 1998. In 1999 there was a net increase of 50,000 union members and for the first time in 20 years an increase in the level of membership in the total workforce. Last year in the US, unions turned around a decline which stretched over the entire post-war period.
In both the US and Great Britain unions have pioneered new tactics for the times. It will take some time, but I know that Australian unions will also rebuild and grow.
But the issues for the future go beyond our own process of organisational change. We have also had to re-examine our industrial goals, and our strategy for change to the industrial laws.
The change in the workplace has generated new issues for working people and these require new responses. And in the shift to a bargaining system we have found that we do not have, under the Federal laws, effective collective bargaining rights.
Let me mention a few of the contemporary workplace issues first.
For far too many people, the workplace of the twenty-first century is characterised by work intensification, unmanageable workloads, long and often unpaid working hours, job insecurity, and a growing pay gap between workers with bargaining capacity and those on minimum wages.
This is the backdrop for the ACTU's new industrial agenda.
I mentioned earlier the fact that we are developing a US-style working poor in this country.
This is one of the reasons the recent ACTU Congress recommitted to the concept of a Living Wage. It is our objective to establish a minimum wage for full-time work of $500 per week, or $13 per hour.
This will not happen overnight.
But in the coming years, through bargaining and through the annual ACTU Living Wage case, unions will establish a decent minimum wage for all Australian workers. And I ask you, if unions do not speak out for low paid workers and their families, who will?
But low pay is not the only barrier to a decent living standard for many employees.
27% of the Australian workforce are now casual workers. Many casuals cannot secure sufficient hours of work to make ends meet. Many are not casuals at all, but are refused access to permanent employment despite months and years of work in the same job.
Very few have access to sick leave, annual leave, or parental leave.
I don't believe that as a community we should condone a situation whereby one-quarter of the workforce has no right to basic standards of leave, or improved job security.
Improving rights for casual workers is a key priority of the ACTU's industrial goals. The Queensland Council of Unions is on the front foot already. It will continue to be a key issue for unions generally in the months and years ahead.
Other issues include the need to improve the balance between work and family, and to develop reasonable limits on total working hours. In almost every major industrial dispute in the past few years work loads and working hours has been a key issue.
Nurses in Victoria have just last week welcomed an arbitrated settlement to their dispute with the Victorian Government. Not only because of the pay out-come, but principally because the settlement dealt with the issue of staff to patient ratios and workloads.
Increased workloads are at the top of the agenda for Fairfax journalists in their current dispute with management.
Senior management at the Commonwealth Bank have threatened the wide scale introduction of individual contracts because staff have refused to accept a proposal from management that does not address inadequate staffing levels.
The increasing anxiety of many workers about workloads and working hours is not surprising.
Consider that in 1997 an Australian Bureau of Statistics study revealed that there is one million hours of overtime being worked in Australia's finance sector every week and that more than seventy percent of this overtime is unpaid. This equates to more than 26,000 full time jobs - roughly the same number of jobs that have been 'down-sized' in the industry since the mid-1990's.
These are just a sample of the issues that people are saying they want unions to work on. They are of particular relevance to women and I have put them at the centre of the ACTU's work program.
Our other industrial priorities include protecting employee entitlements, and establishing a community standard for superannuation contributions that ensures working people have a decent and dignified standard of living in their retirement.
But as I mentioned a moment ago, changes to industrial laws are also squarely on our agenda. Although there are many areas requiring improvement, the fundamental problem at the moment is this - there is a decentralised bargaining system without genuine collective bargaining rights.
Take the Commonwealth Bank. 80% of its' workforce is unionised. They want a collective agreement negotiated through their union. But there is no legal obligation on the Bank to negotiate, to bargain in good faith, or even to meet with the union.
Under the Howard/Reith system, it is possible for the employer to go further and disregard the bargaining process, discriminate against union members and those wishing to collectively bargain, and impose individual contracts.
As a result there are now a plethora of disputes about rights - where the right to negotiate must be established through industrial and legal means before pay and conditions even get a look in.
This situation is unsustainable. If as a community we want decent standards of conduct in industrial relations, and if we are to have a sustainable bargaining system, there must be a fair set of bargaining rights.
And this brings me to some comments about the business community.
I have outlined some of the challenges and policy priorities facing unions, but Australian business also has it's own set of challenges in this rapidly changing world.
In recent years there has been too little dialogue between unions and business. Partly this is the result of an enterprise focused bargaining system. But there is less understanding now than there has been at any time over the last 20 years, of the big issues as each party sees them.
There has been little discussion about the competitive pressures faced by many industries, and the impact of these on employees such as I have outlined this evening.
There has been little discussion about the broader issues of jobs, skills, education and the legislative framework. We have allowed the rules to be set by the politics from Canberra. But governments come and go. I can tell you that unions will not go with them - we intend being around for a long time indeed.
The ACTU is open to a constructive process of dialogue with the business community. A dialogue that enables a better understanding of the issues, and one which focuses on policy responses in areas of common purpose. I have touched on some such issues tonight. And the ACTU has a view too, about some reform needed inside the Boardrooms of this country. We are one of many voices calling for greater transparency and accountability in the ways in which public companies carry on their business. It is fashionable to declare that 53% of Australians directly or indirectly own shares, and that there is no longer the polarisation of interest between wage earners and shareholders that once might have been the case. The corollary is that shareholders might take much more interest in corporate governance issues. Issues like the independence of Boards in reviewing management decisions, executive remuneration, how companies treat their workforce, and the impact of company decisions on the community. By and large Australian institutional investors have not played an active role in corporate governance issues. It is time that these investors, representing, as they do, the retirement savings of millions of workers, required companies to adopt the highest standards in relation to how they govern themselves and how they behave towards stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, the community and the environment. This is an issue about which more will be heard. I think that the years ahead will be exciting. Unions are not by any means a homogenous group. We are as diverse as the community from which we have grown. But unions are looking forward, we do have a program for the future, and we do intend to play an active role in public life. This speech was delivered to the Brisbane Institute on Tuesday September 5, 2000.
|
This speech was delivered just prior to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle late last year. The AFL-CIO is the peak union body in the United States.
My thanks to the National Press Club for inviting me to use this prestigious forum to speak on behalf of the 40 million people in America's working families that our unions represent. Nothing will have a greater impact on the lives of those working families than the future direction of the global economy, the rules by which it operates and the values that inform those rules.
Events of this month have dramatically framed the struggle over that direction. But the questions of the WTO agenda and China's role are only the current focus. The larger questions of how to bring fairness and stability to the global economy will not end with the upcoming meeting of the WTO in Seattle.
The administration says the China trade deal and the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle will be historic, and we agree. But history won't be made at the meeting of trade ministers there. The truly historic turn of events will take place in the streets of that wonderful working class city.
On November 30th, tens of thousands of working men and women and their families from across America and countries across the world will rally and march in Seattle. We will be joined by 200 international union leaders representing over 135 million workers from more than 100 countries.
We will call upon the delegates to the World Trade Organization to address workers' rights and human rights as well as environmental and consumer protections in the rules that govern the global economy - demands that are supported by workers from Argentina to South Korea, from South Africa to the Czech Republic, tens of millions of workers from developing as well as developed countries.
The confrontation in Seattle will signal an end to the era of trade accords negotiated behind closed doors and the beginning of a new era in which working families participate in trade decisions that affect our lives.
The attempt to bring China into the WTO intensifies our determination, because we believe it is less likely to reform China, as its advocates claim, than it is to further deform the WTO. And it is more likely to detract from the WTO's already questionable legitimacy than to add to it.
The White House and the business community are working hard to sell the China deal and to launch a "millennial round" of trade negotiations.
Editorials pose a choice between free trade and protectionism, between engaging China and isolating it, between embracing the global market and turning our backs on it. Opponents are being dismissed as part of the past, and as obstacles to the prosperous future of the new economy.
This is nonsense. The debate isn't about free trade or protection, engagement or isolation. We all know we're part of a global economy. And we're so engaged that we're already running a $60 billion trade deficit with China.
The real debate is not over whether to be part of the global economy, but over what are the rules for that economy and who makes them - not whether to engage China, but what are the terms of that engagement, and whose values are to be represented.
Global corporations have defined the global market and dominate it. They enlisted governments to slash regulations, free up capital, open up markets, guarantee investments. They made the rules and they cut the deals.
The World Trade Organization, founded five years ago, is the capstone of the corporate-dominated world marketplace - it oversees and enforces the rules of the global economy, arbitrates trade conflicts, and claims the authority to challenge state and national laws that conflict with its rules -- rules that protect corporate interests, but not people.
Each year in France, at least 2000 workers die of asbestos-related cancer. Yet when the French voted to ban all forms of asbestos, the law was challenged as a violation of the WTO's trade accords.
And in Massachusetts in 1998, voters were told that to boycott companies doing business with the slave labor regime of Burma would run afoul of the WTO.
China cannot be admitted to the WTO on these terms. If states and localities decide to boycott any business using forced labor in China, will China be able to challenge that action as a violation of the WTO?
If students and workers gather again before a Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square and the Chinese leaders slaughter them once again, will China have the right to challenge U.S. trade sanctions as a violation of the WTO?
Renato Ruggerio, former director of the WTO, claimed it was creating "a constitution for the global economy." If so, it is a constitution by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. It is a constitution with a Bill of Rights that guarantees only the rights of property.
Not surprisingly then, the global economy works well for the multinationals. Under the WTO they created, global corporations now control about one third of all export trade.
But the global economy does not work to the benefit of working people - the 200 richest people in the world have a greater combined income than two billion of our poorest brothers and sisters. The World Bank reports that 200 million more people live in abject poverty today than in 1987.
Over the last 25 years, the global economy has produced slower growth and greater inequality in both less developed and industrial nations. Financial collapses have grown more severe and more frequent.
Working families have suffered most, because indebted countries have little choice but to compete by lowering their own standards, establish export processing zones, outlaw worker organizing, waive environmental laws, ignore food safety and public health regulations, and slash social spending.
So every day, some 250 million children across the world go to work rather than to school, making goods that flow freely across national borders.
Every day, tens of thousands of workers are chained into forced labor and prison camps, slaving to make products that enrich global corporations and dictatorial governments.
Every day, millions of workers work for less than a living wage making products they cannot afford to buy.
Yet when working people across the world try to join together to gain decent wages and safe working conditions, what happens?
Last year more than a thousand workers trying to organize in their workplaces were killed. Thousands were arrested and imprisoned. Tens of thousands were fired, losing their livelihoods, devastating their families.
For all the talk about free trade and democracy, when corporations invest in developing countries, they send more money to dictatorships than to democracies.
China, which has the worst practices of any country, already gets the most investment by far - and this is a country where anyone attempting to organize a union is immediately arrested and imprisoned - no exceptions.
Even in the industrial democracies, working families have not fared well because growth has been slower and inequality greater.
Japan has been in depression for a decade, with workers losing the security they once enjoyed. Europe is scarred by long term unemployment with countries pressured to cut back worker benefits. Here in the United States, inequality has been rising, and families pay the price while men and women work longer and harder in jobs that offer fewer benefits and less security.
For working families in this country, the global economy is not an abstraction. Many jobs are dependent on exports. Many are lost to imports. Employers routinely use the threat to move abroad as a club in contract negotiations.
Last year's global financial collapse produced tremors on Wall Street but trauma in Pittsburgh. Even with the economy growing, the U.S. lost more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs over the last 18 months as devastated countries tried to export their way out of trouble.
The most efficient steelworkers in the world saw their jobs swept away by a flood of dumped imports, and when they sought relief from the flood, the President told them unilateral action would run afoul of the WTO.
Seated here with me today is one of the workers I'm talking about. John Folk and 1,100 other workers were employed at the Huffy Corp. bike factory in Celina, Ohio, where they built the best bikes in the world for a company that was making a profit. John was a local leader for the Steelworkers Union, which helped those workers share in their company's success with wages averaging $15 to $16 an hour.
But last year, the Huffy bike company decided to shut down their prosperous plant to move to a less efficient plant in Mexico and import more bikes from China, where workers are not allowed to organize together to lift their standards. The directors took home a multi-million dollar bonus. The workers got a pink slip.
Workers like John will be with us in Seattle to put our version of a "human face" on the global economy.
America's working families understand the cruelty of a world economy regulated in favor of the corporations. A majority understands that trade accords like NAFTA hurt us more than they help. Four out of five Americans want labor rights and environmental protections built into trade accords. Over two thirds oppose bringing China into the WTO without further progress on human rights and religious freedom.
Public opinion around the world is fueling a growing protest movement that has begun to make itself heard in the halls of power and win real change.
We stopped fast track trade authority in the Congress not once but twice -- despite the best efforts of the Republican leaders of Congress, the Democratic President and the Business Roundtable.
When Jubilee 2000 enlisted church and labor support across the world, debt relief finally got onto the global agenda.
When an international movement of workers, consumers and environmentalists challenged the acceleration of financial deregulation by the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, they brought its closed negotiations to a halt.
And when students learned that items branded with the names of institutions of higher learning were being manufactured at a cost of human misery around the world, an anti-sweatshop campaign spread like wildfire on college and university campuses.
Many of the leaders of that movement will be with us in Seattle, and some are here today. I'd like to ask the students from United Students Against Sweatshops to stand and be recognized so we can tell them, "Don't stop short of total disclosure."
The students are proving that corporations and others in power may not see the light, but they feel the heat, and we are going to keep raising the temperature.
President Clinton seemed to get the message when he told the WTO that it has to open up and incorporate workers' rights and environmental concerns. The administration says it is committed to bringing labor rights into the WTO and as a first step in Seattle, it is actually pushing hard for a WTO working group on trade and labor rights.
But a working group, even if it is achieved, is only a start - we cannot and will not be satisfied with gestures or cosmetics. A "human face" on the global economy isn't enough - we want a body of laws that work for working people.
Moreover, as I said at the beginning of this week, it is disgustingly hypocritical for the White House to posture for workers' rights in the global economy at the same time it prostrates itself for a deal with China that treats human rights as a disposable nuisance.
It is time to cut through the posturing - when it comes to making the global economy work for working people, there is no third way, only a right way and a wrong way.
Incorporating enforceable workers' rights, human rights and environmental protections in every U.S. trade and investment agreement is the right way; admitting a repressive China into the WTO is the wrong way. Prohibiting the import of goods manufactured by children is the right way; excluding the voices of working families from the WTO is the wrong way.
Let me be clear about our plans to move the right way forward.
In Seattle, working people from across the world will call on the WTO to review its record and reform its rules before taking on new areas for negotiation. Our objectives are simple.
Every worker deserves protection of basic human rights - prohibitions against child labor, slave labor, discrimination, and the freedom to join together with others in a union.
The WTO must incorporate rules to enforce workers' rights and environmental and consumer protections and compliance should be required of any new member.
WTO proceedings must be opened up to give citizens a meaningful voice.
National and state laws and regulations concerning public health and the environment must be safe from global veto.
And the ability of governments to safeguard their people from devastating import surges or product dumping must be strengthened.
Until the WTO addresses these important issues, there will be no support for a major new round of trade negotiations.
But we will not simply wait for the WTO to act - Seattle is the beginning of a fight we will carry to every level of our government.
We will continue to organize in the Congress against any trade accords that do not include workers' rights and environmental protections.
We will continue to reject any fast track authority that does not require negotiation of enforceable workers' rights.
We will oppose the admission of any nation to the WTO until it is in compliance with core workers' rights -- and that means we will wage a full and vigorous campaign against granting permanent NTR status to China.
Supported by the vast majority of Americans, we will build a majority in Congress to sustain our position.
We realize that the business community has hired big gun lobbyists to run a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign and push the China deal through the Congress, but we'll counter their money with mobilization and we will make certain that working families in every congressional district are aware of the position of every candidate.
Both Vice President Gore and Senator Bradley have pledged to demand that workers' rights and environmental protections be part of future trade authority and enforced in future trade accords.
We don't know how they will reconcile their promise with their support for the China agreement, but we will hold them to their word, and urge the Republican candidates to join them in that pledge.
We will call upon the White House to translate its rhetoric about workers' rights into action. Recently, President Clinton issued an Executive Order banning federal contracting with companies that employ one specific form of child labor and we will ask that it be expanded to ban procurement of any products produced in conditions that violate fundamental workers' rights.
We will work to make American law reflect American values - under current law, countries that enjoy trade preferences in America can be stripped of them if they violate core workers' rights, but the enforcement process is slow and difficult.
We will work with congressional allies to strengthen our laws to make sure respect for workers' rights and the environment becomes a reality for all of our trading partners and we will urge Congress to strengthen laws that safeguard U.S. industry from import surges or dumping efforts.
Clearly, the agreement with China suggests that the business community is not yet convinced that basic human rights and environmental protections must be incorporated into the trading accords. We must turn up the heat.
To do that, our central labor councils and state federations will take the message of Seattle to their state legislatures and city councils, where they will seek legislation and executive orders that ban procurement of goods produced in conditions that violate fundamental workers' rights.
If the WTO will not enforce workers' rights and environmental protections, then national and local governments must act to do so. Let the WTO explain to citizens why they cannot choose to boycott companies producing goods with child labor in Honduras, or slave labor in Burma, or workers who are locked up when they try to organize a union in China.
Seattle marks the beginning of a new order. The China deal is the final and most extreme example of the corporate era of trade negotiations. The popular protest in Seattle escalates the struggle to make the global economy work for the many and not just the few.
At the turn of the last century, when the great trusts and banks of the Gilded Era forged a national industrial economy, America faced a similar challenge.
It was an era of sweatshops, child labor, brutal repression of workers, and poisonous workplace conditions. The new industrial giants enlisted the government and the courts to suppress local attempts to regulate them and literally arrest efforts to organize them.
It took decades of courageous organizing, sacrifice and struggle and a Great Depression, but eventually we wrote new rules - including the minimum wage, a forty hour week, workplace health and safety, the right to organize, anti-trust, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The result, after World War II, was a growing economy in which the blessings were widely shared, and the great American middle class created.
Now we face the same daunting circumstances in the global economy and once again, we confront sweatshops, child labor and brutal repression. Once again, corporations enlist private tribunals to strike down efforts to regulate them. And once again, we must struggle and sacrifice to write new rules to ensure that the blessings of this new economy are shared and its excesses controlled.
Those who say that corporate free trade is the future and that the demand for workers' rights and environmental protections are part of the past have it wrong.
They are proven wrong by workers in south China who risk arrest to demand a living wage. They are proven wrong by small farmers in the Philippines who demand protection against fields poisoned by foreign corporations. They are proven wrong by American students who demand an end to sweatshop labor, and they will be proven wrong by those of us who will gather in Seattle to begin lifting our country up to a high road into the 21st century.
The paths to that road are steep. Our adversaries are powerful and entrenched.
But we can and will reform the global economy because we have faith in what Dr. Martin Luther King taught us, that the moral arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.
by The Chaser
|
The decision comes after a number of rich, white, middle-class parents of S11 activists threatened to withhold their pocket money if the protest went ahead.
"I wanted to protest, but my dad really put the pressure on me," said one activist, Felicity Brown, 21, of Surrey Hills, who is a member of the International Socialist Organisation. "He said he'd confiscate my Volvo, and I was hardly going to catch the train in." Resistance organiser Tim Edmonds, 19, of Burwood echoed her sentiments. "I'm very committed to fighting capitalism, but I'm not stupid," he said. "When dad said he'd stop my allowance, I had to give in. I decided I didn't want to take the risk of delaying the revolution by a single day because I couldn't afford to help work towards it."
According to S11 organisers, the threat was co-ordinated by a group of evil employers, including Coca-Cola, Monsanto and Microsoft, who bullied their Australian employees into making the threat through repressive labour practices. But at least one parent, Jenny McGrath of Fitzroy, claims it was all her own idea. "My daughter Teri doesn't understand the value of a dollar ," she said. "I wanted to teach her that while Nike's labour policies keep foreign child workers in crippling poverty, they also keeps her in her favourite grungy fashions."
The S11 organisers, who were going to try to disrupt the WEF through a massive, co-ordinated protest, have decided to adopt different tactics, choosing instead to "infiltrate" the companies, as one anonymous activist who has taken a job with Nestl� puts it. "We all knew that Nestl� forces third world women into using formula instead of breast milk, and my commitment to fighting this exploitation demanded that I find out as much about it as possible," she said. "Now I have learned that there are all kind of benefits to the mother from using Nestl�'s competitively-priced products. Who would have thought it?"
S11's change of heart comes as the Liberal Party is attempting to increase Federal Government funding to private schools in another attempt to remind activists of their responsibilities as members of Australia's wealthy elite. "Our government is committed to diversionary programmes to keep troubled youth from leading a life of crime," said Federal Education minister Dr Kemp. "Protesting is the thin end of a wedge leading to serious crimes like trespassing and resisting arbitrary arrest," he explained. "But now that private schools can afford to buy lots of new pool tables, they may be able to keep kids off the streets."
by Peter Lewis
|
Only in France? Dinner table conversations are being dominated by a trade unionist - who has banded together a gang of merry pranksters to thumb their noses at the world, and the US in particular. His name is Jose Bov� and they want to make him President. For a nation renowned for - on the one hand its style and class; on the other, its rudeness and arrogance - this modern-day Robespierre - as much philosopher as revolutionary - is a natural fit. Bov� has become the symbol of the struggle of a nation that sees itself as the centre of the world and wants to keep it that way.
It all started over the World Trade Organisation's determination to allow American multinationals, like McDonalds, to have the freedom to use meat from livestock fed grain that was genetically modified to bulk the animals up. France, which had already experienced Mad Cows Disease, would not approve the use of this meat on health grounds. As part of the penalty for breaching free trade principles the WTO ordered retaliatory trade sanctions from the US against French products, including the famous Roquefort sheep's cheese - a distinctive blue that knocks your socks off.
Enter Jose Bov� - a one-time intellectual and leader of the 1968 student riots in Paris. He had moved to the southern town of Millau to produce said cheese and put his political convictions into practice by organising the local agricultural workers into a union. He led his colleagues in destroying the town's McDonalds franchise with a bulldozer, a crime for which it has been recommended he receive a ten month suspended sentence. Whatever the final sentence, the "crime" has given him national fame and a platform to rail against the WTO and globalisation.
More than 50,000 supporters descended on Millau in July before his trial for an anti-globalisation concert. It's a cause Bov� has been quick to jump on the bandwagon for - literally. He arrived for his court hearing in a horse-drawn cart to chants of "McDomination". Even the Wall Street Journal has editorialised on the trial - noting that "in the end, the prosecutors recommended a slap on the wrist for the vandals, while globalisation was found guilty of heinous crimes - as charged by the vandals".
For a nation that has less than 10% of workers in trade unions, the rise of Bov�
may seem incongruous. But despite the low formal levels, there is an activist culture that sees regular strike action from non-unionists - coordinated by the bodies they will not join. Only this week, for instance, both farmers and fishermen picketed over high fuel prices - about $A.1.80 per litre. For the trade unions, bitter divisions based on political alliances to the Communists and Socialists mean there are three peak bodies. But they retain influence through their key role in the social security system - and the sort of direct action that has catapulted Bov� to the forefront.
The response from McDonalds has been just as interesting. They are still here, but their shopfronts are strangely understated, the golden arches a bit smaller and less -well golden. They market the "McFrance", an attempt, perhaps, to break their Uncle Sam image.
It's a sign of Bov�'s success in forcing a global icon against itself - the little farmer fighting the giant multinational with all the PR nous to match and better their multi million dollar marketing machine with a simple message - "I'M NOT FOR SALE".
But there is more to this story than Jose Bov�. He has tapped a rich vein with those who see globalisation as the enemy of national, regional and local culture. France is a nation that holds these things dearly. Of course there is the history - the old chateaus and cathedrals, the unfolding story of millenniums of struggle. But it is also a culture that is alive - life seems less efficient - more appreciative of its place in history.
Throughout the country, local regions produce and trade in their "Specialities" - cheese, wines, fruits and vegetables. It is these specialities and the French people's determination to enjoy them that makes up the culture, more than any building or costume. It's not something that can be put on a postcard, but for millions of French who still shut up shop for two hours in the middle of the day to enjoy a decent lunch, it is something worth fighting for.
To the north in Picardie, the rich farmlands that were once the Western Front, the villagers hold an annual "Spectacle" which literally translated just means "show" but really is spectacular. More than 1,000 citizens of all ages dress up in historical costumes and vogue their way through the history of the region. It is a history of harvest and war, wave after wave of invaders expelling the dogged peasants from their land; only to return to sow the fields again when the killing stops. The story flows all the way through to WWII, when the last wave of invaders doused the fields in blood. The young children who play the role of their grandparents making the long march home after the war, are connected with their history in this tangible way.
France's Socialist Government has played its part too - standing up to the US in its push to open the French TV and film markets to their product. While much of the hype around the failure of the MAI and Seattle has focussed on the success of mass protests, France's steadfast commitment to cultural autonomy was equally as damaging.
Critics of Bov� and his assault on globalisation accuse him of conservatism, of attempting to turn back the tide of history. I'm not so sure. While Seattle's protesters have adopted him as a folk hero, the difference is that he has a positive agenda -of keeping rural communities alive by promising cultural diversity. Of course, Bov�'s agenda is not without costs - the farmers he represents are themselves beneficiaries of massive subsidies that allow them to produce their specialities - much to the chagrin of Australian farmers and manufacturing workers in their own country. But at least it is an argument with a tangible outcome, where the costs and benefits are clearly on the table.
In the Australian context it begs the question for those about to converge on Melbourne. What is it you are fighting for? As a nation with a common language to the US and without a European cultural tradition, we are even more exposed than the French. But where are our Bov�s? What are the symbols to win the hearts and minds? Kangaroos? Boomerangs? Neighbours? Or are we left the sort of inward looking xenophobia that One Nation tapped? The lesson of Jose Bov� is that dissent requires imagination, action that resonates with people, not anger and obstruction. Whether he succeeds in holding off the Americans remains to be seen, but the French farmer has at least succeeded in writing a new script for his people.
by Joe McLoughlin
|
Last Wednesday's Canterbury Park debacle should never have happened at this level of what is not only a sport but a major industry. Fans who roused themselves to the bugle of night racing would not have appreciated the meeting being called off without a race being run.
Punters, being punters, are used to misfortune. They accept that weather and all sorts of unforseen circumstances can play havoc with their sport but when it comes down to something as simple as a major metropolitan club not having a back-up generator in place, forbearance, quite rightly, is thin on the ground.
This STC cock-up came just weeks after cross-town "friends" at the AJC procrastinated over the unsatisfactory surface at Warwick Farm just long enough to write modern-day superstar Sunline out of their spring script.
The champion mare's Kiwi connections always planned to start her campaign in Sydney, as they had in autumn and, indeed, the year before that, when she bewitched crowds at Rosehill, Warwick Farm and Randwick on her way to the Cox Plate.
They were never going to risk her on a surface that was already bringing cries of anguish from owners and trainers of far-less valuable beasts. But the AJC messed around for so long that the Sunline camp felt compelled to re-chart a course without a NSW stop-over.
Already she has toyed with opponents in black-type weight-for-age clashes at Sandown and Caulfield.
Silly me, but I thought it was generally accepted that racing needed its superstars more than ever - not in NSW apparently.
Then there's the small question of the NSW TAB and it's over-powering influence on programing. It can't be easy to be a giant - even a jolly, green one - but there are finite limits to the excuses available.
Their insatiable lust for turnover has ensured that quality runs a very distant second to quantity. Those who suffer are the clubs, the bookmakers, owners, fans and, of course, the punters.
Horse players are now being treated like the mugs who jam their money into slot machines. There are far too many events and venues for most to keep any reasonable record of form. By and large, fields are too small to get anything approaching value for your dollar.
Still, if you're patient and prepared to put in the work, horse playing can be just as lucrative for the small-medium investor as any other form of punting, the sharemarket included.
If you're serious, though, you must go to the track and be prepared to invest through the bag-men, no matter what the spin-meisters from the JGG might say.
Two examples from a close friend over the last three weeks just about sum the situation up. On the day Sunline resumed at Sandown he put $1500 on her snorer at 2/1 with a bookie returning a gross figure of $4500, the same investment through the NSW TAB ($2.20) would have yielded $3300.
The following Saturday he went to Rosehill and, along with four losing bets, scored with Condotti (10/1) and Sea Breeze (6/1). Our friend made a profit of $700 on the day, whereas exactly the same investments with the JGG would have meant a loss of $40.
Variations of those magnititudes can mean, over a year, the difference between comfort and abject penury.
by Michael Gadiel
With the opening of the World Economic Forum unions, students and an assortment of left wing political groups will converge on the Crown Casino in Melbourne next Monday, 11 September.
Unions will hold their own rally on the Tuesday - voicing the concerns of many members, particularly in blue collar and manufacturing industries, worried by the devaluation of their skills and their job security.
The memory of the 1996 Canberra rally is ever present in the mind of the union movement. It gave a practical demonstration of how the media quickly turns their attention from the key message to stories of rioting and violence. It serves to underscore the importance of maintaining discipline - such as that displayed at the MUA picket lines and more recent union protests.
Reservations regarding the s11 protest, derive not as a result of the union involvement. There is every reason to believe that the union rally will be well managed and peaceful. The issue is that some of the rhetoric coming from groups associated with s11, such as "shut down" or "blockade" the conference or "bring Seattle to Melbourne" raise concerns about their true intentions. Any attempt to restrict access to and from the conference venue will inevitably result in clashes with the police and security - and these will be the images beamed into every lounge room in Australia.
Throughout the eighties and nineties the globalisation agenda has been dominated by big business - to suit its own purposes. A meeting like the WEF provides a unique opportunity to drive this point home. That's why it is so important that the people on the sharp end of these structural changes are given the opportunity to get their message through - loud and clear.
Globalisation has generated much wealth for Australia and Asia - the difficulty is that its effects have been uneven. The majority of the population have benefited from the opening of markets and the associated increased competition, destruction of monopolies, better access to goods and services, whilst a minority are worse off. The political backlash arising from this has manifested itself in groups such as the One Nation movement, whose agenda has largely been one of reversing the process. With their loss of support - the failure of their thinking is apparent.
We need to mend the social fabric that has been torn by the structural reform associated with globalisation. To do this we need to start taking seriously the concerns of people are feeling the impacts most harshly. Nobody has the answers - but if we are going to be taken seriously we need to look at options like compensation and safety nets and training.
It is not possible to stop globalisation in the same way that it wasn't possible to halt the aggregation of city-states and principalities of Europe into Nation States. Those that promise to stop globalisation are selling a false message.
We live in a democracy and most Australians have benefited from the wealth that globalisation brings. It is beyond the power of the unions or any government to halt the process - but we can shape it. We must recognise the benefits and make sure that enough of the extra wealth flows to those that miss out.
There appears to be disagreement amongst the various groups supporting the protest about they are protesting about - opposition to globalisation is the only unifying factor. Are they against a bunch of rich guys hegemony over the globalisation agenda? Are they pursuing an opportunity to highlight their various causes, or are they opposed, in principle, to globalisation per se? The progressive movement needs to raise itself from its entrenched outright opposition to the inextricable process of globalisation and start thinking about a vision for the kind of global society we want to build.
Clashes with the authorities at the s11 protest will inevitably undermine the efforts of those on the progressive side of politics who are seeking to exert a positive influence on the shape and direction of globalisation. Unions will maintain their discipline, but there are genuine concerns about some of the groups involved in the campaign; if there is violence, then message of those who have a genuine story to tell about the negative effects of globalisation be drowned out by outraged headlines and images of violence.
The sale of the State Bank of NSW has to be one of the worst business decisions ever made. Fahey sold it for about a seventeenth of its value. The net proceeds were just over $160 million. A few years later it is making that per annum. It was recently valued at between $2.6 and $2.9 billion by Arthur Andersen.
In the time honoured tradition of the Liberal Party such uselessness and incompetence wasn't a ticket to the political oblivion Fahey deserved. Instead Mr Charisma Free was drafted to Canberra and put in charge of the biggest float in Australian history!
And good onya John you're nothing if not consistent, you botched that one up as well. Charisma Free offloaded the first tranche of Telstra - the most blue chip enterprise in the economy, strategically located bullseye in the center of the new economy as a firesale megabargain.
If Fahey was a bumbling character in a BBC comedy he'd be a good laugh. Of course in real life such a tool is the maker of other people's tragedies. This week in his latest cock up the Minister of Silly Privatisations could be costing 600 rail workers their livelihoods.
It's not often you see a union supporting a public asset sell off but the RBTU - stuck between a rock and a hard place with the sell off of National Rail, and after exploring all possible scenarios - concluded that jobs could be saved with a merger of FreightCorp and National Rail. Even if this meant the new entity had to be in private hands.
But for our privatization expert, the financial wizard whose very touch turns to mud, the parallel sale of both organisations doesn't fit the ideological strait jacket.
No way Jose. I know what's best. An incompetent and destructive tool.
© 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/70/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 |