Pat Portlock: Standing up for his mates |
The back-down came after a meeting with Labor Council officials and affiliates on Thursday, two days after Industrial relations Minister John Della Bosca announced sweeping changes to the system without any formal consultation with the trade union movement.
At an angry Labor Council meeting, Della Bosca was condemned for the process and substance of the package, which seeks to import the Draconian motor accidents scheme into workers compensation.
A string of unions threatened to take direct industrial action if Della Bosca does not use the four and a half week negotiation period he agreed to to make significant changes to the legislation.
The CFMEU and Transport Workers have already foreshadowed strike action, with 500 building workers voting to endorse the Labor Council campaign with a series of rolling stoppages over the coming weeks, while transport workers consider stoppages from Monday.
US style system
The key concerns centre around plans to reduce the appeal rights of workers and change the industry assessment process to one based on the United States.
Affiliates were briefed by labour lawyer Richard Brennan who said the current reform was worse than the 1987 package introduced by the former Unsworth Government.
The following were highlighted as examples where workers rights would be diminished:
- changing the threshold for common law claims. Currently a worker can sue an employer if they lose 25 per cent of a body part; under the new scheme they can only take common law action of they lose 25 per cent of their 'whole of body'. Brennan says this knocks out all but the most serious cases - quadraplegia and severe brain damage.
- the American assessment system has been introduced for motor accident victims and has consistently worked to reduce payments for pain and suffering. This has been migrated into workers compensation.
- binding panels will decide the extent of injuries, with those sitting not even needing to be qualified medical practitioners. Workers will not have the right to appeal a determination in court.
Workers Hit Across the Movement
Unions expressing concern last night included both blue collar and white collar unions and said the handling of workers compensation had been a breach of trust with the working people who had got them elected.
CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson said his members were being asked to pay for the WorkCover's failure to ensure compliance in the industry.
"Because of this failure to manage the WorkCover scheme my members are now being asked to pay through reduced benefits. They will not cop it"
Fire Brigade Union secretary Chris Read said his members were already considering strike action over the government's failure to agree to decent death and disability payments and this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"We are not just concerned, we are bloody disgusted at the contemptuous manner we have been treated," Read said
Textile Clothing and Footwear union state secretary barry tubner added that his members, working with chemicals and exposed to horrendous skin diseases would also slip through the net.
Stress Claims Attacked Too
White-collar workers would also be hit, with claims for psychological stress also being cut out of the system.
Finance Sector Union state secretary Jeff Derrick says bank workers exposed to hold-ups would no longer be able to access pain and suffering compensation over the changes.
Derrick says he has one member who has been involved in 17 armed hold-ups and could no longer work in a bank. She would miss out too.
And Teachers Federation delegate Joan Lemere said she had members who had been working with psychologically disturbed adolescents and are physically attacked would also miss out on being compensated.
Breach of Trust
Della Bosca's move in introducing the legislation on Thursday night after promising to delay it until next week also drew heavy censure.
Australian Workers Union state president Mick Maddern said that Della Bosca has always been regarded in the movement as "a man of his word - until now".
"He broke his word," Maddern said, " and we should never trust him again".
Public Service Association general secretary Maurie O'Sullivan was in typical acerbic form, saying that unions had remained silent over the previous six years when the government had done things against the movement's interest.
"I say to Bob Carr and John Della Bosca - you do not deserve the charity of our silence and you are not
Campaign to Gather Scheme
The campaign against the changes will gather steam with radio and newspaper advertisements highlighting the impact of the changes on working people.
A series of workers who have suffered accidents will spearhead the campaign, driving home the message that the cuts will add to the human tragedy of workplace deaths.
Pat Portlock, who lost the lower half of his leg when a crane collapsed on him earlier this year while working on the M5 East project, is one of the workers who will participate.
Portlock, who took to the streets over the 1987 reforms, told last night's Labor Council that he had been appalled to learn a Labor Government had proposed these changes.
"I mightn't get five bob out of this now," Portlock says, "I'd like to see them grow me another leg".
For full coverage of the Compo dispute, keep an eye on the LaborNet campaign page at http://www.labor.net.au/compo
The back-down came after a meeting with Labor Council officials and affiliates on Thursday, two days after Industrial relations Minister John Della Bosca announced sweeping changes to the system without any formal consultation with the trade union movement.
At an angry Labor Council meeting, Della Bosca was condemned for the process and substance of the package, which seeks to import the Draconian motor accidents scheme into workers compensation.
A string of unions threatened to take direct industrial action if Della Bosca does not use the four and a half week negotiation period he agreed to to make significant changes to the legislation.
The CFMEU and Transport Workers have already foreshadowed strike action, with 500 building workers voting to endorse the Labor Council campaign with a series of rolling stoppages over the coming weeks, while transport workers consider stoppages from Monday.
US style system
The key concerns centre around plans to reduce the appeal rights of workers and change the industry assessment process to one based on the United States.
Affiliates were briefed by labour lawyer Richard Brennan who said the current reform was worse than the 1987 package introduced by the former Unsworth Government.
The following were highlighted as examples where workers rights would be diminished:
- changing the threshold for common law claims. Currently a worker can sue an employer if they lose 25 per cent of a body part; under the new scheme they can only take common law action of they lose 25 per cent of their 'whole of body'. Brennan says this knocks out all but the most serious cases - quadraplegia and severe brain damage.
- the American assessment system has been introduced for motor accident victims and has consistently worked to reduce payments for pain and suffering. This has been migrated into workers compensation.
- binding panels will decide the extent of injuries, with those sitting not even needing to be qualified medical practitioners. Workers will not have the right to appeal a determination in court.
Workers Hit Across the Movement
Unions expressing concern last night included both blue collar and white collar unions and said the handling of workers compensation had been a breach of trust with the working people who had got them elected.
CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson said his members were being asked to pay for the WorkCover's failure to ensure compliance in the industry.
"Because of this failure to manage the WorkCover scheme my members are now being asked to pay through reduced benefits. They will not cop it"
Fire Brigade Union secretary Chris Read said his members were already considering strike action over the government's failure to agree to decent death and disability payments and this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
"We are not just concerned, we are bloody disgusted at the contemptuous manner we have been treated," Read said
Textile Clothing and Footwear union state secretary barry tubner added that his members, working with chemicals and exposed to horrendous skin diseases would also slip through the net.
Stress Claims Attacked Too
White-collar workers would also be hit, with claims for psychological stress also being cut out of the system.
Finance Sector Union state secretary Jeff Derrick says bank workers exposed to hold-ups would no longer be able to access pain and suffering compensation over the changes.
Derrick says he has one member who has been involved in 17 armed hold-ups and could no longer work in a bank. She would miss out too.
And Teachers Federation delegate Joan Lemere said she had members who had been working with psychologically disturbed adolescents and are physically attacked would also miss out on being compensated.
Breach of Trust
Della Bosca's move in introducing the legislation on Thursday night after promising to delay it until next week also drew heavy censure.
Australian Workers Union state president Mick Maddern said that Della Bosca has always been regarded in the movement as "a man of his word - until now".
"He broke his word," Maddern said, " and we should never trust him again".
Public Service Association general secretary Maurie O'Sullivan was in typical acerbic form, saying that unions had remained silent over the previous six years when the government had done things against the movement's interest.
"I say to Bob Carr and John Della Bosca - you do not deserve the charity of our silence and you are not
Campaign to Gather Scheme
The campaign against the changes will gather steam with radio and newspaper advertisements highlighting the impact of the changes on working people.
A series of workers who have suffered accidents will spearhead the campaign, driving home the message that the cuts will add to the human tragedy of workplace deaths.
Pat Portlock, who lost the lower half of his leg when a crane collapsed on him earlier this year while working on the M5 East project, is one of the workers who will participate.
Portlock, who took to the streets over the 1987 reforms, told last night's Labor Council that he had been appalled to learn a Labor Government had proposed these changes.
"I mightn't get five bob out of this now," Portlock says, "I'd like to see them grow me another leg".
For full coverage of the Compo dispute, keep an eye on the LaborNet campaign page at http://www.labor.net.au/compo
Premier Bob Carr announced the long-awaited outworker initiative during his State of the State address last weekend, coiniciding with his sixth year in power.
He had been heavily criticised for standing still on legislation after announcing it as policy before the 1999 state election.
FairWear convenor Debbie Carstens says the package is a significant step forward in protecting the right of outworkers.
"In other jurisdictions there have been voluntary codes, but the proposed legislation would make a legal requirement that retailers and manufactures take responsibility for their labels.".
Carstens also welcomed the appointment of four blingual inspectors in the Department of Industrial relations, but said their were reservations about the government's level of financial commitment for community work
She said the right of recovery for outworkers further up production chain to manufacture and retailer was also an excellent development because many workers see their employers disappearing with their wages. "It's probably the single most frequent issue that the union deals with for outworkers," she says..
The Government will also establish an Ethical Clothing Trades Council - and Fairwear hopes it will be included in that.
But Carstens says she's disappointed legislation is 12 months coming which will further delay brining justice to this industry.
Textile Clothing and Footwear union state secretary Barry Tubner endorsed the package and thanked Labor Council assistant secretary John Robertson for the key role he played during negotiations.
FairWear Incorporates
Meanwhile, Fair Wear is about to incorporate nationallyand is looking for four people from NSW to be nominated onto the initial National Committee, for the purposes of incorporation. Meetings of the National Committee will happen by teleconference.
For nominations or a copy of FairWear's draft constitution at mailto: [email protected]. Please forward nominations as soon as possible (by 1st April at latest).
The initiative was part of the ALP's Corporate Governance policy released this week by the Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley and Shadow Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, Senator Stephen Conroy this week.
Labor's industrial relations spokesman Arch Bevis says the announcement is good news for Australian workers.
"The increasing incidence of employee entitlements being lost when companies become insolvent has demonstrated has demonstrated the need for greater scrutiny of Directors - the disclosure of Director salaries is much needed step in this direction.
"Labor's plan is to ensure that the interests of management are aligned with the interests of shareholders. It is not in the interests of the workers or the shareholders of for companies to be placed in receivership.
"The move to make Directors more responsive to shareholders should be welcomed by Australian workers. With more and more workers owning shares, both directly and indirectly through superannuation funds, more so than ever before Australian workers are directly affected by decisions at the board level.
"In the past we have seen, company executives and directors award themselves huge salaries even when their companies perform poorly, this is because they lack accountability to their shareholders. The disclosure of information to shareholders is in the interests of better corporate management, and represents good economic policy.
"Under the Labor plan companies will be required to disclose the criteria on which management performance is assessed and remuneration increases are justified or calculated. This also requires that share options issued to directors be valued in the accounts of the company.
The Howard Government has refused to act on this issue and to enforce even the existing provisions of the Corporations Law.
Other policy initiatives include:
� measures to improve the enforcement of the continuous disclosure provisions in the Corporations Law;
� a review of ways to increase the accessibility of corporate information and increase the flow of information to retail investors;
� the prompt disclosure of details of directors' share trading and an examination of other initiatives, including trading windows, directed at ensuring a fair market and that the objectives of performance pay cannot be distorted;
� a restoration of the independence of the Australian Accounting Standards Board; and
� ensuring the independence of auditors, in line with international best practice.
"It is widely recognised that corporate governance practices in Australia need to match international best practice - this will help to protect the interest of investors and attract capital to Australia, which in turn results in job growth.
The employers paid $1000 to attend the briefing by high-profile union busting lawyers, Freehills, Hollingdale and Page, the same firm which advised Patrick Stevedores during the waterfront dispute.
The Sydney briefing followed similar meetings in other capital cities. Unionists leafleted outside the meetings, pointing to the benefits of working with unions rather than against them.
In Sydney, NSW Unions led by officials of the NSW Labour Council and ACTU ended the successful campaign against Freehills' attempts to woo call centre managers to their hard line industrial relations strategies.
ASU call center coordinator Col Lynch says that with the rapidly expanding call centre industry now employing over 200,000 workers in over 4,000 call centres Freehills can see a lot of potential to peddle their anti-worker wares.
Freehills has now held a series of seminars in Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. The seminars are offering advice to call centre employers on combating the ACTU Call Centre Campaign.
A centrepiece of the campaign is a minimum standards code. This code is modeled on the call centre industry's own research and seeks to ensure workers who are employed in the industry receive a decent wage and safe working conditions.
The ACTU and call centre unions have been lobbying governments and employers to sign on to the code and ensure that all government call centres make minimum standards a prerequisite when letting contracts. To date, the Tasmanian Government, Local Government Association, Western Australian Government and several employers have signed the code.
The NSW Labor Council has convened a joint unions working party to negotiate the signing of the code by the NSW government. Detailed negotiations with the Queensland government are also continuing.
" At a time when bosses all over Australia are trying to force workers to accept longer working hours our members have won the right to keep the 35 hour week," Cheryl Hyde, LHMU Assistant National Secretary said today.
" Mirotone had hoped to turn the clock back on a twenty year old working hours standard in the paint industry by getting our members to work a 39 hour week.
" At a time when the union movement is pushing a charter for delegates rights we have stopped an attempt by this company to undermine workplace democracy by announcing - in the middle of a dispute - they were sacking our senior union delegate."
As part of the return to work deal the LHMU members at Mirotone have also won an 8.1 per cent pay increase over nineteen months.
March thu the gates on Monday
Union members will walk back through the gates of Mirotone - at their plants in Sydney and Brisbane - at 6am on Monday morning (April 2) celebrating a victory for collective action.
Before the march LHMU members will hold a celebratory breakfast barbecue with special guests at the Mirotone work site in Revesby, Sydney, on Monday (April 2) at 5am.
Included among the guests will be the former national secretary of this union, Ray Gietzelt, who was instrumental in winning the 35 hour week in the paint industry twenty years ago.
Ken Phillips, the Mirotone senior paint delegate at the Revesby plant, who the company sacked, said today that this dispute underlined the need to protect the rights of workplace delegates.
Delegates rights
" The ACTU and the LHMU are pushing for governments to put into law a charter of delegates rights.
" Companies should not think they can win a dispute, undermine a union, just by sacking a delegate.
" Respect for workplace delegates should be a given in all workplaces and should be a central campaign issue for all unions," Ken Phillips said.
The Mirotone paint company used the Reith anti-worker laws to lock out their workforce three times over a six week period.
The LHMU started an industry-wide campaign nine months ago to improve the pay and working conditions of its paint industry members in all paint companies.
Agreements have already been reached at Taubmans, Wattyl, Selleys and now Mirotone.
Brayden's parents are among the 61 workers who were sacked when the company went broke, owed more than $650,000 in unpaid entitlements.
Meanwhile, the companies Administrator this week delivered a report which alleges that the sole director of Chircan Holdings Pty and Mahiya Holdings P/L (Administrator Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) formerly trading in partnership as trading as Grenadier Coatings has:
- granted unfair preference to certain creditors
- been trading insolvent since at least 30 June 2000
The Administrator further reports the quantum of the claim against the director is estimated at $3.3 million. The Administrator has requested the Director provide a statement of his financial position.
The Director maybe sued under section 558G of the Corporations Law if the Administrator places the Company into liquidation.
TCFEU organizer David Tritten says a creditors meeting will be held on Monday. At this stage the Administrator appears to want to continue to find a buyer for the plant and stock.
"The Administrator has not ruled out selling the Company as a going concern however substantial capital injection would be required," Tritten says.
" If he is successful this would provide an opportunity for the workers to realise a greater proportion of their entitlements.
"However, the TCFUA is mindful that with each day the Companies continue to be in Administration any monies that might be returned to workers (in the event the Companies are liquidated at the end of the day) is eaten away by the costs of the Administration.
The Union and its members are considering their options in the lead up to Monday's creditors meeting.
The NSW Police Association says there has not been a full-time presence at Port Kembla since September 2000, when the resources were diverted to the Olympics and these have not been recommitted to the region since.
Police Association industrial secretary Peter Remfrey says police now understand Water Police want to open a new facility at Eden which they fear will take resources at the expense of Port Kembla.
"It is also apparent that there is now an attempt to buy off community concerns by providing Port Kembla with a runabout crewed by only one full-time operator," Remfrey says. "This is not just a police issue, it is a community issue."
Labor Council has agreed to convene a meeting with the Police Association, representatives of the local community and the SNW Police Minister Paul Whelan to clear up the issue.
by Mark Morey
In a recent case brought by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (NSW) a Dymocks Parramatta sales assistant had been working to a published weekly roster for 11 weeks found she was no longer rostered, even though Dymocks was advertising for casual employees. She had been working between 4 to 15 hours per week. Dymocks told her she would no longer be rostered on. Upon contacting Dymocks, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (NSW) was told that the young woman's employment had been terminated.
Dymocks argued that under the Industrial Relations (General) Regulation 1996, the young woman was not able to seek unfair dismissal because of clause 5B(1)(d) as she had been employed for a period of less than 6 months service. The 5B provides exemptions from unfair dismissal provisions. Clause 5B(1)(d) states:
(d) employees engaged on a casual basis for a short period except employees who:
(i) are engaged by a particular employer on a regular and systematic basis for a sequence of periods of employment during a period of at least 6 months, and
(ii) would, but for the dismissal, have had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the employer.
However, the IRC found that this proposition did not support the exclusion of a casual employee, employed for less than 6 months. The IRC stated "the Regulation has not done, and what we do not think it could do, is to say that engagement on a casual basis for a period of less than 6 months is necessarily engagement for a short period". Thus, it is erroneous to believe that any casual worker with less than 6 months service is excluded so as to remove the jurisdiction of the Commission to determine a claim for unfair dismissal.
As the New South Wales Workforce becomes more casualised this decision is significant victory not only for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (NSW) but also for all casual workers. It is a clear precedent that will assist all unions in their coverage of casual staff members and reinforces that casual workers are entitled to more than casual rights in their workplace.
Big local Hunter area companies are cancelling contracts to show solidarity with the community and the local workforce.
The consumer boycott is an angry response to the shutdown of the Buttercup bakery, putting LHMU members out of work from April 22.
The community boycott was organised by local Labor MPs, Bob Horne and Bryce Gaudry, as a show of solidarity for the LHMU members who are campaigning to get the multinational Goodman Fielder, who own the bakery, to reverse its decision.
To test the strength of community anger a survey - titled Good on ya mum, Buttercup's leaving town' - is circulating in the Hunter region asking people if they would attend a protest rally at the Broadmeadow bakery.
The LHMU has also organised a petition which you can print off and get other workers to sign and send back to the union office in Newcastle.
LHMU Newcastle Secretary Carmel Cook, said yesterday the union understood major clients were cancelling contracts for Buttercup bread.
" We were in a meeting yesterday when one of the girls came in and said another big customer had rung up and cancelled their contract," she said.
" We believe that the boycott is beginning to bite and we'll be going around to more big customers in the next few days asking them to stop buying Buttercup.
" The union has had a number of meetings but the company is insistent that nothing is going to change, that the closure and retrenchments will go ahead as planned," she said.
" We asked for 12 months grace, for three months grace, but they keep saying no, no, no. The company is refusing to consider the union's ideas."
Join the campaign by clicking here to tell Buttercup's owner,Goodman Fielder, what you think of their decision to shut down their Newcastle bakery.
Last week's decision that Telstra discriminated against union members in choosing employees for redundancy has been seized on to reopen the case of Rosemary Kilborn, thrown on the scrapheap after 47 years of service.
CPSU Communications Union organiser Rupert Evans called Telstra's decision to terminate the West Geelong woman on 28 March "blatantly unfair".
"After loyally serving one employer and the community for half a century, to be treated this way is beyond belief. They should be giving her a medal not sacking her," Mr Evans said.
"Now that there is a big question mark over their redundancy procedures we want this case re-opened."
The union will hang its hat on a number of issues, including the Federal Court ruling that former Telstra employee director, Rob Cartwright, discriminated against unionists.
The full bench, headed by Chief Justice Michael Black, questioned Mr Cartwright's evidence to the court finding in it "a degree of improbability".
Not only was that embarrassing to Mr Cartwright, since appointed a senior vice president of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, but the CPSU believes it could rebound on his former employer.
Last March Mr Cartwright sent an email to 275 Telstra managers on the same day the corporation announced it would cut 10,000 employees. He said staff who had signed individual contracts had shown "trust" in the corporation and warned managers they would be held accountable to support the company's "preferred model of individual employment."
Kilborn, a decades long union member, has fought her impending redundancy through internal procedures and efforts to utilise the help of both her union and Australia's ageing Prime Minister.
She wrote to Mr Howard on March 9 pleading for help in retaining her position at Telstra's Exhibition St, Melbourne headquarters.
Ms Kilborn told the Prime Minister she believed she was being discriminated against "because of my age and nothing else."
While Mr Howard hasn't bothered to reply, her union has told her the court case "strongly suggests" she has been the victim of double discrimination.
Telstra Flouts Court Finding
Meanwhile, the CPSU Communications Union will take on Telstra over call centre closures it says "flaunt" a Federal Court judgement.
The union, which won full bench backing for its claim that Telstra redundancy procedures discriminated against employees on awards and collective agreements, is furious that the corporation has gone ahead and targeted two of its most highly-unionised sites for closure.
CPSU Communications Union secretary, Adrian O'Connell, promised to engage the telecommunications giant in an "industrial, legal and political battle" over plans to close Parramatta and Ashfield call centres, from early June, at the cost of 93 jobs.
Mr O'Connell labelled the announcement, and it's timing, "arrogant".
"Only last week the full bench of the Federal Court accepted Telstra's former employee manager, Rob Cartwright, had discriminated against union members when it came to redundancy. They walked out of the court, put their heads together and came back with this, it's an outrage," Mr O'Connell said.
He suggested none of the jobs would be redundant in the real sense of the word - the company would either outsource them to lower-paying subsidiary, Stellar, or tranfer them to lower-paid, contract-based operations in Lismore and Townsville - population centres in Coalition-held marginal seats.
"This is the implementation of the Cartwright plan Telstra concocted to discriminate against unionists," Mr O'Connell said. "It might be illegal under Australian law but that doesn't seem to bother them.
Our members at Parramatta and Ashfield have served Telstra and the community for many years. Their livelihoods should not be sacrificed to outsourcing, individual contracts or pork barrelling."
The CPSU is urging Federal Government, as the majority shareholder in Telstra, to block the Parramatta and Ashfield closures until the corporation gives a guarantee that replacement jobs will attract the same wages and conditions.
by Jim Maher
The CPSU Communications Union, worried that constant Telstra cost-cutting is jeopardising the welfare of workers and visitors to the city centre, wants proof the communications giant has been pro-active in the face of Melbourne's legionella problem.
The Department of Human Services and Health confirmed last Friday that air-cooling towers in two Lonsdale St Telstra buildings had unacceptable levels of the bacteria. The CPSU has advised Telstra employees not return to work until the buildings are cleared.
But communication section secretary, Adrian O'Connell, said the issue went deeper than waiting on a clean bill of health for the Londsdale St offices.
The most worrying aspect of the latest outbreak, he argued, was that it was only discovered after precautionary tests ordered by the Department of Human Services.
"This discovery was not made by systematic testing, cleaning and disinfecting," he said.
"We don't know whether Telstra is testing any of its buildings regularly, or just waiting until legionella bacteria is found in the building next door.
"Telstra is required by law to provide and maintain a safe and healthy working environment for all its employees. This brings a financial cost, and in light of the rigorous cost-cutting they are forever trumpeting to the sharemarket, worries about how proactive they have on this issue.
"We demand that Telstra release figures showing that its financial commitments to health and safety are not being compromised by Dr Switkowski's cost-cutting campaign.
"The company was fortunate this time but they need to understand that, in the long term, prevention costs less than the cure."
by Paddy gorman
The new benchmark price of US$34.50 a tonne has been established in the settlement between Rio Tinto's Coal and Allied subsidiary and the Japanese utility Chubu Electric Power Co.
The latest 20% steaming coal price rises comes on top of the recent 7.5% increase for high quality coking coal and a 25% jump in price for semi-hard coking coal.
The across the board increases in coal prices have been fuelled by stronger oil prices, continuing concern about nuclear energy and the long lead times required to bring major gas projects on line.
While the price increases alone will significantly lift coal profits, the record low Australian dollar means that coal companies are reaping a profit bonanza.
With the pendulum having swung in the coal industry there are simply no more excuses for the coal companies to deny workers job security and a fair share of the prosperity we have helped create.
by Phil Davey
The lived in isolated conditions and paid starvation wages at Helensburgh for two and a half years before they joined the union and walked off the job earlier this month..
In fact the dispute went backwards as the offer temple management brought to the meeting was for the stonemasons to go back to work on their old (illegal) rate of pay, but that the balance of the award wage would be paid over a two year period.
The wealthy members of the Temple Management Committee continue to hold Australian laws in absolute contempt, crying poor in spite of their confirmation that the Temple Association has a trust account with $300,000 in it.
The CFMEU signaled it would be persuing personally all members of the Management Committee for their flouting of Australian law.
The end result of managements pig-headedness will see the legal action continue with the end result being the foreclosure of the Temple itself, and the community possible losing their asset forever.
The Labor movement is now planning a major campaign on the issue which will see the stonemasons return to national media prominence. Valuable information provided by dissidents within temple management on past practices of the temple management leadership will form the centrepiece of the campaign.
Burrow has traveled to Brussels, home of the International Council of Free Trade Union, where she will raise the two issues with the head of other international trade unions.
There she will meet with representatives of COSATU, the peak South African union body, to discuss the industrial relations standards of Billiton, the firm that has merged with BHP.
She will also meet with AFL_CIO leader John Sweeney to debate the mooted free trade agreement between Australia and the USA.
Burrows stresses that Australian unions will be demanding any asgreement include recognition of core labour standards in both countries.
The hotel workers who have been locked out of their workplace for more than three months have been subjected to violence from private security thugs and local police.
Several have been hospitalised because of these attacks and at least one woman has had a miscarriage because of a police beating.
" The Shangri-La reopened with a reduced staff of scabs on March 17, but the occupancy rate is less than 5 percent, with most of the guests invited by management," Ron Oswald, the general secretary of the Geneva-based hotel unions' international, the IUF, said.
Other Indonesian hotel workers from the Regent hotel and the Hyatt hotel are providing financial support and physical presence on the picket lines outside the Shangri-La hotel.
The Shangri-la workers themselves have established a couple of Solidarity Cafes where the locked out cooks and other staff are selling food to supporters, to raise funds and provide information about the union rights dispute to eager customers.
Menu at the Solidarity Caf�
The Solidarity cafe's main menu items include: Nasi Goreng Stop PHK (Stop Dismissal
Fried Rice) which costs 4,500 Indonesian rupees (less than one Australian dollar) per portion, or Kwetiauw Buruh (Workers' Noodles) at 6,500 rupees per dish.
You could also taste Siomay Perjuangan (Dim Sum of Struggle) for 3,500 rupees, or Solidarity Bihun (Solidarity Rice Noodles) for 4,500 rupees.
Ron Oswald of the IUF says the union continues to organize regular protests outside the hotel despite the strong police presence.
" The union is committed to keeping up the struggle and the workers are confident they can outlast management and return to work with their rights guaranteed in a collective agreement. But to continue the fight they need to eat!
" The IUF therefore appeals to all its members and supporters, as a matter of urgency, to contribute to the IUF Emergency Rice Fund for the Shangri-La Workers.
" We need to raise at least $US 9-10,000 monthly over the next 2-3 months to help sustain the strikers while their sisters and brothers in Indonesia and the IUF internationally work to promote a settlement of the dispute," Ron Oswald said.
US unions act
The American union movement has weighed into the Shangri-La Jakarta hotel dispute with the President of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, warning the Indonesian government of the dire consequences if the conflict continues - and the rights of union members are undermined.
The AFL-CIO's intervention follows similar acts by unions and peak national trade union bodies in Australia, Canada, China's HK SAR and Europe.
" The Shangri-La conflict has received considerable media attention in this country, and American workers are deeply concerned about the situation of their sisters and brothers at the hotel," John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO President, says in a letter to the Indonesian Ambassador to Washington - a copy of which was sent to the Indonesian Minister of Manpower.
The AFL-CIO is planning demonstrations in Washington next week in support of the Shangri-La hotel workers, and has already backed a solidarity fund set up this week by the hotel unions' international, the IUF.
Unions from Australia, Canada, China's HK SAR and Europe have already sent money to back the Rice Fund, as well as holding demonstrations and media conference to press their support for the Shangri-La workers.
In his letter to the Indonesian government the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney goes on to warn that his organisation and its affiliated unions representing 13 million American working women and men are deeply concerned about the conflict at the Shangri-La Jakarta Hotel and its implications.
" Should the conflict continue, it will naturally, have a negative impact on the hotel's brand ( which has a chain of hotels and resorts throughout the Asia-Pacific) and on the desirability of Indonesia as a tourist destination, as potential tourists elect not to visit a country whose commitment to the rule of law would appear to be in doubt."
LHMU support
Early on in this dispute the LHMU sent protest letters backing the Shangri-La workers to the Indonesian government.
LHMU Hotel workers have organised rallies in a number of Australian cities to show their support for hotel workers in Jakarta, and they have raised funds to help feed the Shangri-La workers and their families.
For earlier stories about this dispute visit
Union membership grew by 23,600 last year compared to a decrease of 208,000 in 1999.
ACTU Secretary Greg Combet said the rise reflected the increased focus of unions on grass roots organisation and a growing concern in the community that the anti-union approach of the Howard Government and some employers was damaging the fabric of Australian society.
"I am cautiously optimistic about these figures. To achieve a just and fair society Australia needs effective unions and there are signs that our strategy for revitalising unions is on the right track," said Mr Combet.
In August 1999 Mr Combet launched unions@work, a strategy document for Australian unions which encouraged a greater focus on workplace activity and organisation.
Many unions have since adopted the strategy which has
seen union membership and activity grow in some areas.
But Mr Combet said that the decline in union density in Australia over recent years was an issue for the whole community and not just unions.
Governments and employers needed to start recognising and respecting the right of employees to join and participate in unions he said.
"Instead of taking pleasure in any sign that union membership has decreased, Tony Abbott and John Howard should tell the Australian people what they are doing about increased income inequality, job insecurity,
casualisation and longer working hours. Because that's what their anti-union policies have delivered to Australian workers."
While today's data shows a slight reduction in union density to 25% due to the growth in overall job numbers, Mr Combet said he was encouraged by an increases in absolute and relative union numbers in growth industries like
health, tourism and accommodation and the fact that unionisation increased in half of all industries surveyed.
Another ABS survey released yesterday shows that more than a third of all workers in permanent jobs are union members and that 27% of all employees say they belong to a union.
"Our research shows that the vast majority of Australians support policies based on fairness in the workplace. This is what unions stand for and today's figures reflect that understanding," said Mr Combet.
Buttercup makes bread in order to make a profit for the shareholders who risked their money to back the belief that Buttercup could operate more efficiently than other bread makers. Now they've decided that part of that efficiency is to centralise certain operations. That's their right, just as it was and is the right of their employees to live and work where they believe they can get the highest return for their labour.
It's meaningless for the union to bleat that "workers loyally worked for the company", just as it would be for the company to say they loyally paid the workers wages.
It's time unions and "workers" realised that Australia can no longer afford to provide the feather bedding they enjoyed in the past. Those days have gone. A Labour government and the unions will be powerless to turn back the clock. The most honourable thing the vanishing unions could do is help their members understand this new world instead of pretending that they can resist or reverse change.
Class war and redistribution of income are dead. As the modern saying goes "get a life".
Pete Garrone
by Peter Lewis
|
Greg, it is almost two years now since you put out your Unions@Work Manifesto. Has it made the impact you intended?
Well, you would always like to see a lot more happen, but I think there is real change happening. Whilst I think it is going to take a long time before that translates into some significantly increased membership numbers for unions, and therefore a stronger position to be able to get better outcomes for working people and their families, there are really good signs.
Just the evidence of the number of people that are attending this Organising Conference I think shows that across a very diverse range of unions in all States, from workplace delegates up to national officials, there is a lot of interest in organising; in what it means for unions in terms of change; in what it means in terms of trying to get a better outcome for workers in the future.
So there is a tremendous degree of interest and enthusiasm. I think that there is no doubt that the labour movement is back on the move and we are going to be doing good things in the future, but as we have emphasised from the outset, when we released the report in August 1999, it takes time, and you have got to have the debate and win the debate and put into place the steps to make the changes.
You have yet to be asked what is the single step you think the movement has made in the last two years that has been in the right direction, what would it be?
I think a very honest appraisal about where we are at. At the ACTU Executive I have encouraged a number of unions on each occasion to make a real presentation about what has happened to their union through the 1990s, and as Sam Moait recorded earlier today in her address - she said five years ago she went to the Executive and unions were saying everything is sweet and we are all growing and it is rosy. Everyone knew that wasn't the case.
What we have now is a lot of honesty about what has been happening. Senior officials and branch officials explaining what has happened to their membership; what has happened to their industry. They are analysing what changes have occurred and analysing the changes they need to make in the union to go forward.
At the last ACTU Executive we had two branches in Victoria come along and say look, this is where we are at in this project in this process of change. We haven't done everything right, we've made some mistakes but we have come a long way and there is really some encouraging signs. People are being honest and they are debating the issues and I think that has conveyed a sense of hope that we can make the changes that we need to, and I think it has also distilled in people's minds what we are doing it for.
Everyone in unions works very, very hard, but you have always got to keep a very clear view of what you are doing it for and what the vision is - what you want to achieve. And I thin people have got very squarely in their minds now about the importance of lifting the living standards of working people and their families. That is squarely in everyone's view. They can understand what we are doing it for.
So I think we have got the motivation and the vision right - the debate going - and in some unions there is a well advanced process of change; in others there is a fair way to go but the process is certainly gathering some momentum.
I guess the other big change has been the cooperative ventures between unions. Particularly the Call Central. That must give you some hope that rather than the ACTU being a body to sort out demarcs, you are now becoming a body to facilitate joint ventures?
That has not been an easy project. Call Central, early on when we brought the unions together, pretty much what anyone was interested in was demarcing the industry, and so the tendency was to do what we had always done - that is argue about something where really no one had any members much at all. We overcame that. We have got a protocol of cooperation between the unions. That is not to say that there are not some ongoing issues that need to be sorted. There are. But fundamentally there is a commitment to organising Call Central. And there is a lot of employment there. There is a lot of scope for all unions to organise, and we have tried to go about it in a cooperative way.
But even in traditional areas, that has been another important change, and I mentioned today in my address about the BHP dispute in the Pilbara. This was an area where the unions had terrible relationships and there had been coverage fights and all sorts of disputation - poaching of members - really bitter, entrenched distrust - and that weakened us organisationally on the job. We have been able to get those unions together in a combined, united way for a prolonged period of time to turn that around. To the extent that there is a combined union organiser, and I haven't heard one word from any official at any level, of complaint or disputation about coverage or membership, and amongst the workers on the job when I was last up there a month ago - they were ecstatic. Because they are not interested in Union Bullshit really. They are interested in solid workplace organisation that achieves the goals that they want it to achieve.
So there are a lot of good signs like that.
Just talking about organising for a moment. It seems that it has almost become an all-pervasive term. What does it mean in a nutshell?
I spent a bit of time on that today, because I think that is an issue. It can mean different things to different people, and that is fine. But we are having a two day conference about organising, attended by 650-odd union people from around the country and it is good to re-visit what organising actually means.
It is a very simple thing as far as I am concerned. It is about activism in the workplace in particular - but activism in the wider society as well. It is about involving people in their union. It is not just membership recruitment; it is actively involving people in campaigns in the workplace to achieve the objectives that those workers want to achieve. That is what it means for me.
Other people have been apprehensive about talk of models; about servicing and organising. They have been apprehensive about evangelical approaches imported from the United States in an inappropriate way. They have been concerned about individualism versus organising. A whole range of things - and that is why we visited that today. There are different views and they should be kicked around. It doesn't matter, if it means some different things, or is applied in different ways that are relevant to people's circumstances. But, let's kick it around - and really for me it is union organisation. I don't think there is any great science to it, but there are certain principles about union organisation that we need to re-assert.
What do you say to the industrial legal officers within unions, some of whom say they feel 'dealt out' of the new vision of unionism?
I am not interested in dealing anyone out. As you might know, I have got an industrial officer background, so I am acutely aware. I don't denigrate for one second, any work that anyone does in the union movement. Every contribution is extremely valuable, and I genuinely believe that to be the case.
In bringing about change - in focussing on the workplace - in recognising the diminished role of the centralised wage-fixing in the award system - it changes industrial officers' roles. They mustn't be left out of this process of change. They have got to be integrated into it. There is still a very important job to do in some of that traditional work - in award arbitrations in the different systems. There is very important work to do about legislative change - but there is also important work to do to link those things to what goes on in the workplace - and so industrial staff have got a critical role - as critical as anyone else in my opinion - to play in unions in the future.
Their work might change. We are talking about change to organisers' roles here. We are talking about change to delegates' roles. Industrial officers aren't insulated from any of that and neither are officials. So it all has to be seen as part of a broader picture I think.
The other thing starting to crop up - I noticed in the press last week there was a national union where the leadership is being challenged because they "have failed to embrace the organising model". Does it concern you that in the end something like this can become a doctrine that people use for various reasons?
I made the comment today that I am not much into doctrines or theories or models very much. I am into practical, pragmatic methods that deliver for working people. Keep your eye on the objectives: lift living standards; fairness; health and safety in the workplace. Organising as we are discussing it here at this conference is one of the means to achieve that - linked to a whole lot of other things.
In terms of internal union politics, people will use all sorts of things in all sorts of ways to justify and advance their position, so I don't particularly want to buy into that. I thought it was a rather cute line when I saw it in the media, but I don't draw too much into it.
But it does run the risk of devaluing the term, doesn't it?
Yes that is possible, but I think people understand politics. I mean, there is a political struggle in that particular union at the moment, and people will use all sorts of things. The irony of that comment is that that is one of the most well organised unions in CBD construction that there is - around the world in construction. It is a pretty well organised outfit, and they have built that union on organising methods. Doesn't matter how you characterise it. You might call it something different. So, it is a bit of politics and don't pay too much attention to it.
Let's talk about Federal politics. The election is looming. Obviously there couldn't be a better time to be in the union movement than now, with the likely onset of the Labor Government. How are you viewing the next six months?
A lot of hard work. But hard work that I hope can lead to a change of government. And unions I see playing a substantive role in the course of the next six months, in taking to people in their workplace and in their communities a debate about the issues.
And the issues are: People's hours of work. Balancing their work and family commitments. Job security. The difficulties of being a casual worker when you don't enjoy the community standards like paid sick leave or paid annual leave that most of the rest of the workforce do. Those sorts of things are key issues for working people and you have to have a look at what political parties have got the best programmes to satisfy those things.
The unions have obviously got a long, productive relationship with the Labor Party, and if you look at Labor's programme - the influence that unions have helps ensure that that programme is going to deliver some results for working people and their families.
So we are going to be taking those debates out there. Discussing the various approaches that have been taken to them by all political parties. I think people are fed up with John Howard. I don't think they would believe him, even if he said he suddenly had started listening and became concerned about what is worrying the people out there in their homes in the real world. I don't think they will believe him.
So, we will be working very hard to bring about a change of government. I think this has been a very poor government from a whole lot of angles. It has been poor for working people; it has been very antithetical to union rganization - which has been a bad thing - I think demonstrably. But it is also that their claim to be a sound economic management outfit is in tatters. This is not a good government for economic management. The GST has induced the negative growth in the December quarter. Even the Reserve Bank has acknowledged that now. It is not a good economic manager at all. They are blowing away the budget surplus and who knows where we will end up. They are quite irresponsible.
So, I think the next six months should be pretty interesting. I think the tide has turned well against the Howard Government now, and I think the important thing is that we are able to get a better outcome for the labour movement in the future.
Looking forward towards the Labor Government, we have said that there is not going to be an Accord. What is the relationship going to be? Have you got to the stage of talking to people in Labor about how the two wings of the labour movement will interact?
We talk frequently. And we also talk to the Democrats and other parties too. But obviously, how we view it, as the ACTU - and I think this is generally the view across the union movement - is that there is 100 years of history between unions and Labor, and that has been very important for Australian society and Australian working people. It has delivered a lot of things, that relationship between the industrial and political wings of the labour movement.
Times are different. Most people refer the relationship to the Accord period, and the last had Labor governments. There won't be an Accord this time. Not for some grand political reason really. It is just that the world has moved on. The main change that has happened is that there is no centralised wage fixing system anymore. There is a decentralised bargaining system. And the Accord was founded on a centralised wage fixing system.
But there will be a good relationship between unions and the ACTU, and Labor. We will be pushing very hard about the issues of concern to workers. And it is the issues that will define the relationship more than anything else.
If there are fights over junior wages and things that divide us, obviously the relationship will suffer. If there is a good community of view about the key issues that I have mentioned, obviously the relationship is going to be a good, productive one.
Does it concern you that without the Accord the unions just end up being another interest group that is struggling to get the ear of the government?
No. I think the quality of the relationship will be determined by how unions advocate the issues. How effectively Labor embraces policy responses to those issues. But as I say, there is 100 years of history in this. This is another phase of the relationship between the industrial and the political wing. I am very committed to making that a productive relationship from the ACTU's point of view. So is Sharan Burrow. So is the ACTU Executive. But we will be out there arguing the issues that we think are important.
There might be things that divide us at times, but I think overwhelmingly it is going to be a very strong relationship.
Finally, you foreshadowed more stats out this Wednesday, showing that the slide may not have been arrested. How do we interpret that information?
Well, I would be happy to be wrong. But I am very conscious from going around the country and talking to union officials; negotiating with employers - that the structural change in the economy is proceeding at a grand pace and the impact of job losses in the industries that have traditionally been well unionised, is continuing.
You might remember when we put out the Unions at Work Report, we were talking about - I think we had to recruit two hundred odd thousand people, just to break even with the structural change. I think that structural change has accelerated since that time. There is an enormous organising job to do, just to keep up with the pace of structural change.
We will have a look at the figures and analyse them very closely when they come out. I would love to of course see an improvement, and I am hopeful that there will be, but my practical experience says that with what has been going on in the labour force and with the economy turning down in the December quarter, there is still going to be some problems. And not only that, we are only just starting to turn around some of the anti-union legislation that the conservative government brought into place. In Western Australia - I was over there last week talking to the government about their IR changes and if Labor is elected federally, obviously there are IR law changes that are needed there - and it is a cultural change that can be led by Labor governments too, that puts away some of the conflict and the division and encourages people to cooperate. All of those things have an impact and I think over time we will see the situation turn around.
|
If there is one thing that can be said about the Australasian Organising Conference, it is that a lot of people care about our movement, its future and what we stand for.
Over 600 participants attended the Conference, and whilst there wasn't a lot of time in the sessions to debate issues, there were enough breaks and informal networking to make an observation that the Conference was indeed a success.
I don't intend to summarise the issues, the speaker's notes, or indeed preach the organising gospel, but rather focus on the process of change.
The Pushers of Change
Although he can be at times condescending and self-opinionated, sometimes arrogant, always the performer, Michael Crosby has one mission - to rebuild the trade union movement from the bottom up, and restore real rights for workers.
The only criticism of Michael's approach to change is that sometimes his overzealous approach can inadvertently send the wrong message to both the union leaders he is trying to win over, and the young organising disciples he has trained over the years.
An example of this was in the last plenary session of the Conference where Michael said, "You need to challenge the leadership of your unions".
I'm sure Michael meant that you need to engage and debate with your leaders about adopting an organising approach, however, he then went on to talk about disgruntled union members and changes in union leadership. This made a number of people in the audience feel very uneasy
The last thing we can afford in rebuilding our union movement is for dissidents in unions to somehow use the "organising" debate to mask a political challenge within a union.
We need to rebuild with unity and consensus - not division!
Notwithstanding the above comments, there is no doubt in my mind that there is now a critical mass of union officials, who if not totally in agreement with the organising approach, are certainly willing to engage it, pilot it, and in many cases adopt it. The real challenge for all of us is to ensure the change continues in a positive way.
The Progress of Change
The "change" to organising will be gradual. I say gradual because it requires training - and lots of it; culture change - and lots of it; hard work - and lots of it.
If we consider that organisers will spend more time organising in un-unionised sites or industries, and finding activists/delegates in unionised sites and re-training them to take on more responsibility in grievance handling and recruitment, the task will not be easy. We also need to re-educate, if not force major employers to respect the role of delegates and members on organised sites, and to regard them as no lesser negotiating representatives than full time union officials.
As difficult as this is, it is actually what unions were doing a hundred years ago, when they relied upon rank and file activists to organise and service the membership - but without cars, faxes, e-mails, or mobilise phones to help them along. They had issues to fight for, commitment, and lots of hard work to do.
The challenge to rebuild unionism will not be easy and requires continued resources to be committed to training, as Triana Silton said:
"Activist development is the first thing that falls off the plate because it/s not something that will stop the union overnight, it will just slowly kill it."
The Role of a Peak Council
The Labor Council can't organise for unions, nor can we tell unions to adopt an organising approach, but we can facilitate both the debate about rebuilding unionism - and more importantly - be active participants in the rebuilding process.
The Labor Council's traditional role was to help fix up disputes quickly; service a range of public sector awards; and play a role in keeping the peace bet ween the industrial and political arms of the labour movement.
These days the role and approach is somewhat different:
� we help finance (through various means) the ACTU Organising Centre;
� we spend much more time engaging the community on issues important to workers through the media, Workers Online, and alliance with community organisations;
� we assist unions in campaigns and promoting organising approaches to issues;
� we provide officials directly to unions to assist in organising campaigns; and
� we don't turn a blind eye to things that Labor governments might do to disadvantage workers and/or their rights.
The Labor Council of New South Wales is a strong supporter of rebuilding our movement and a strong advocate for using an organising approach to issues, where it is appropriate.
I say "appropriate" because in some cases a shift to organising will take longer because of the circumstances, resources and the culture of a union.
The Australasian Organising Conference was a great success, but we must move forward on a united basis - and that means winning people over and not trying to push change in a way which inadvertently might cause division. Having said this, I pay tribute to Michael Crosby and his crew for their drive and enthusiasm to keep our movement alive.
John Buchanan |
The return of mass unemployment since the early 1970s most advanced capitalist countries has been one of the most significant dimensions of social change in that time. While joblessness has fluctuated with the trade cycle, unemployment has settled at a higher level at the end of each cycle. More importantly there is growing evidence that, on balance, the quality of jobs is deteriorating. This is evident in rising levels of involuntary part-time work and the growth in many forms of non-standard employment.
In parallel with these developments there has been a shift in policy about work. Whereas an earlier generation of policy makers attempted to improve wages and employment conditions directly, belief in the efficacy of such interventions has declined. Interest in income support and training appears to be replacing an earlier interest in improving the nature and content of work. Such developments are presented as 'innovations' by adherents of the third way. Indeed, interest in training and new forms of income support such as tax credits are presented as a break with the kind of neoliberalism which dominated government in the English speaking world during the 1980s and 1990s. But while the ascendancy of the 'new right' has waned, the legacies of this period survive. Adherents of 'the third way' now promise to transcend the limitations of both classical social democracy and 'new right' neoliberalism. This political tendency, primarily associated with Clinton's Democrats in the US and Blair's 'New' Labour in the UK, purports to redefine politics around the 'radical centre'. Electorates in the English speaking world are now offered a 'new' vision for our time - neoliberalism with a human face.
Are third way inspired policies likely to effectively address the key issues confronting working life today? And are alternatives to them possible? This paper reflects on the experiences of 'third way' style policies in action. Between 1983 and 1996 Australia was governed by a social democratic party, the ALP. Consideration of recent Australian experience is useful because many of the policies that are now described as 'third way' were pioneered by the ALP over a decade ago. The particular focus of this paper is the restructuring of the labour market and working life, a key area of policy concern to 'third way' adherents. We argue that not only have 'third way' style policies failed to effectively address a deteriorating labour market situation, many have in fact been counter productive.
It has been a presumption of economic policy in general and labour related policies, in particular, that jobs are provided by a single employer conceived as being the owner of the enterprise that engages wage earners. It was also assumed there was a fairly fixed relationship between the demand for output and the demand for labour. The Australian variant of the classical wage earner model also included a conception of labour market regulation. The essential feature of this part of the policy model has been the assumption that social progress in the labour market is best achieved through quasi-judicial regulation of wages (especially wage relativities) in conjunction with collective agreements. Both are supported by the provision of income support where the worker is between jobs (ie frictionally unemployed).
The achievements of the Australian policy model have been considerable These include early experimentation with new forms of social security, especially for women and children in the 1910s. At many times over the last century and a half Australia has occupied a leading position in the reduction of standard hours of work. This began with the achievement of the 8 hour day in key building trades in the 1870s and subsequent achievements of the 40 hour week in the 1940s and then the 35 and 38 hour week in the 1970s and 1980s. Until recently Australia had comparatively high material living standards that were pretty evenly spread throughout the population, arising largely from a compressed relative pay structure. When combined with the active management of effective demand in the post war years the essential features of the 'classical wage earner model' of labour market regulation in Australia delivered one of the highest levels of full employment from the 1940s through to the early 1970s.
It is important to acknowledge that inequalities continued to exist. About a sixth of the workforce, for example, came from non-English speaking backgrounds (especially Southern Europe, the Middle East and Asia). These workers occupied the least attractive jobs. Despite, their relative location, however, they shared in the same underlying benefits of other wage earners concerning the maintenance of basic standards in wage rates, hours of work and entitlements to sickness, holiday and long service leave as well as standard unemployment income support. Over time, too, women's relative position improved. The landmark equal pay cases in 1969 and 1972 resulted in one of the fastest realignments of gender based relativities in the OECD at the time. Consequently, whilst inequality persisted, the underlying trends involved increasing the proportion of the population that shared basic wage earner standards of living.
The efficacy and relevance of this model, however, began to break down in the 1960s and 1970s. This was evident in the changing realities of labour supply, labour demand and rising inequality from the 1960s onwards. On the issue of labour supply women's increased labour force participation rose from just over 30 per cent to just under 50 per cent between 1966 and 1986. This had not been envisaged in the model and was only imperfectly incorporated into it, primarily on the basis of employment that was part-time and casual in nature. Since the mid 1970s the unemployment rate has risen steadily. Whereas in August 1966 the open unemployment rate was 1.8 per cent, by the later 1970s and 1980s it was hovering between 8 and 10 per cent. Changes in labour demand were just as pronounced.. For example, the proportion in manufacturing fell from 25.6 to 16.4 per cent. Consequently, employment in services rose from just under two-thirds to just over three quarters of the workforce. The change in occupations was just as profound. While just over half the workforce was blue collar in 1966, this had fallen to 40.1 percent in 1986. White collar jobs grew by a corresponding amount, with the growth in professions rising from 7.6 per cent to 11.8 per cent over this period. The security of jobs on offer has also fallen. Casual employment was so rare that it was not even reported separately in official statistics in 1966. By the mid 1980s 17.2 per cent of employees were engaged on this basis.
Particular concern has focused on the bottom of the labour market, and the extent to which the 'poor got poorer'. Jeff Borland, for example, has shown that between 1975 and 1995, the bottom 10 per cent of earners suffered a 9.4 per cent decrease in their real earnings, with the deterioration worsening after each recession. And weekly hours of work for full time employees steadily rose from the late 1970s at the same time as under-employment increased steadily amongst the growing numbers of part-time workers. Equally dramatic changes also occurred in the structure of household. Both dual and non-waged income household have increased in secular fashion since at least the late 1960s. Increased female labour market participation rates represent more than a response to increased economic need, they are indicative of a profound shift in gender relations over the last three decades.
In short, as a matter of reality, the classical wage earner model has accounted for a dwindling proportion the labour market since the late 1960s. In addition, it no longer represents the preferred model of work for growing numbers of workers, especially women. The divergence of the labour market reality from the precepts of the classical wage earner model did not merely represent an 'old policy framework' not keeping up with 'modern times.' The changes also reflected developments within the world economy and Australia's place within it. Long term trends in profitability and the country's role as a provider of raw materials raised serious challenges to the continued viability of the 'new protection settlement' and its implicit 'wage earner model' of work.
The emergence of a new settlement at work: from 'third road' to 'third way' responses to the long downturn
Key features of old policy mix began to unravel following the economic slowdown of the early 1970s. Like most labour movements, the Australian movement was initially overwhelmed by these events. The ALP government in office at the time, led by Gough Whitlam, initially attempted pump-priming initiatives. When these proved ineffectual it commenced a program of fiscal and monetary austerity. This latter program was continued more vigorously by an incoming conservative Liberal-National administration under Malcom Fraser which actively embraced 'monetarist' solutions. These in turn proved equally ineffectual, and an ALP government led by Bob Hawke was re-elected on a corporatist/Keynesian program of economic reconciliation and reconstruction in 1983 based on an Accord with the ACTU.
The immediate impetus for the Accord strategy was to reduce unemployment. In formulating its position the labour movement adopted, initially, a broad agenda of change based on an incomes policy. Wage policy was to be coordinated with industry, demand management and social/health policy. The best organised sectors of the labour movement undertook responsibility to discipline their militants to deliver wage restraint so that growth would result in a 'rebalancing' of factor shares and not 'excessive wage rises. This political stance complemented their limited practical options for devising a wages policy in the wake of the deep recession of the early 1980s. During the first two years of the Accord, supportive action was taken in establishing universal health insurance (Medicare), a scheme to reduce long term unemployment through direct public sector job creation, and significant policy interventions to revitalise the steel, car and heavy engineering sectors. Strong growth delivered reduced unemployment.
From 1985, however, neoliberals mobilised. Their power base was located in central public service economic departments and the key export sectors of mining and agriculture. Financial sector economists also played an important ideological role. Seizing on a balance of payments crisis in 1984/85 the thrust of policy shifted from economic regeneration based on an augmented Keynesian position to a classical austerity policy mix based on 'fiscal consolidation', free trade and 'microeconomic reform'. The Accord remained, but almost solely as a mechanism to restrain aggregate wages through a combination of disciplining militants, accommodating tax cuts and the introduction of industry based occupational superannuation.
Over the course of the second half of the 1980s and into the early 1990s both the ALP Government and senior union officials steadily devised a series of 'pragmatic' responses to neoliberal prescriptions, especially in the realm of policies on labour related issues.. By the latter 1980s financial deregulation limited monetary policy options, and austerity fiscal policies limited the Government's room to move in the realms of taxation and public expenditure policy. Equally, the steady emergence of a free trade position limited the capacity for active policy initiatives concerning industry development. In the context of this policy mix labour related issues received increasing government attention as one of the few areas where the Government felt able to launch new initiatives to respond to the pressures associated with the increased internationalisation of the economy. The initial impetus for these reforms was to promote a high skill, high wage economy. This concern was quickly displaced, however, by a preoccupation with increasing 'labour market flexibility' through 'deregulation' to enhance international competitiveness. Three areas in particular received special attention.
The first concerned wages and industrial relations policy. Between 1987 and 1991 this shifted from being based on a centralised approach of nationally coordinated wage bargaining to a system of enterprise by enterprise negotiation. This proposal was initially promoted by neoliberals and especially by the Business Council of Australia. It was soon enthusiastically embraced by the leadership of the ACTU. By 1993 a newly re-elected Labor Government actively promoted non-union bargaining, an arrangement that had been made unlawful 50 years earlier
From 1985 onwards employability became the key concern and considerable attention was given to the issue of skill formation reform. Initially much of this activity was directed at breaking the domination of the skilled trades in the vocational training system, the aim being to make vocational education more broadly available through-out the workforce. A shift to competency based training was the hallmark of this approach. This initiative subsequently evolved into the push to have an 'employer driven' training system based on the creation of a national 'training market'.
Finally major changes were introduced to social security arrangements. A large scale review of the social security system was undertaken in the 1980s. This was primarily directed at better integrating a wide array of programs of income support. With the onset of the 1990s, however, the problem of long term unemployment became a matter of pressing policy concern. At the heart of these initiatives was the development of a 'mutual obligation' approach based on a jobs 'compact' between welfare recipients and the state. These ideas have been subsequently taken further by a conservative government elected in 1996 under John Howard's leadership.
How effective have these policies been in addressing a deteriorating labour market situation?
The legacy of 'third way' initiatives: undermining labour market standards
It is one of the great ironies of recent Australian labour market experience that impressive labour market outcomes were associated with the period of high corporatism and Keynesian reflationary policies in contrast to the remarkably unimpressive outcomes associated with their abandonment. The greatest achievement of the early Labor years was strong employment growth. In the mid to late 1980s this was the strongest in the OECD. Indeed, in 1989 unemployment fell below 6 per cent.
A number of less desirable trends have been apparent since the late 1980s. This is clearly evident in rising levels of inequality in terms of both market based income and the increasing proportion of workers undertaking extended or insufficient hours of work. The end result of these changes is a redefining of standard work both at the top and bottom of the labour market. This is especially apparent in increasingly levels of labour market churning amongst the low paid, dissatisfaction with hours of work amongst the higher paid and almost universal reports of increased levels of labour intensification. Far from being part of the solution, most third way initiatives in Australia appear to have intensified problems in the labour market (
The level and composition of labour demand changed dramatically. After initially falling through most of the 1980s unemployment rose dramatically in the recession of the early 1990s reaching levels not seen since the 1930s (ie around 12 per cent in 1992). Deindustrialisation of work also continued with significant employment growth occurring in low wage, service sector jobs. Of greater significance has been the change in the workplace setting of all jobs. This primarily concerns the quality and especially the security of tenure of work on offer. Comprehensive data on these aspects of labour demand have been collected as part of the AWIRS surveys undertaken in 1990 and 1995
All the indicators point to a decline in full-time, permanent jobs and a growth in precarious forms of employment which provide managers with tighter control over how labour is deployed on the job to ensure all hours worked are productive. The greater use of casuals, employment agencies, retrenchments and high levels of unpaid overtime highlights this dynamic. Of particular significance is the rising incidence of retrenchments amongst larger workplaces. Despite entering the recovery phase of the trade cycle in the mid 1990s large Australian workplaces reported a higher incidence of job shedding in the middle of the decade than they did just prior to the recession of the early 1990s.
As the 1990s drew to a close only half the workforce was employed on a full-time, permanent basis. Indeed, over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, precarious categories of employment have grown at a faster rate than full-time, permanent jobs. Casual employment is especially widespread amongst women, where one in three are now employed on this basis. What was particularly significant about developments in the 1990s was that precarious of forms of employment became widespread in former unionised strongholds. Employers are now increasingly creating jobs of this nature. As such the nature of labour demand is being radically and rapidly recast.
The policy preoccupation with employees' employability resulted in neglect of concern about employer training practices. Data on trends in these over the same period shows that the decline in apprenticeship training was not off-set by a rise in employer training effort elsewhere
The restructuring of wages has been profound. Over the course of the 1980s and into the 1990s levels of wage inequality continued to increase. This development is often attributed to the changing gender and industrial composition of the workforce. It is important to note, however, that significant growth occurred in the incidence of low paid service sector work amongst the male workforce. Not only did men shift from manufacturing jobs to service sectors jobs, leading to important changes in the composition of their low paid jobs, but within those service industries the incidence of low paid jobs increased dramatically. For example, in wholesale and retail trade the incidence of low paid jobs jumped from 6.6 per cent to 10.5 per cent, an increase of 59 per cent. In entertainment and recreation the increase was from 11.1 per cent to 18.6 per cent, a rise of 68 per cent. Women, on the other hand, experienced similar compositional change, but the incidence of low paid jobs actually fell across all industry group
In the 1990s, workers' earnings became much more sensitive to enterprise-level conditions, and the kind of wage fixing mechanisms under which they now operate.
Hours of work were totally recast throughout this period. In the mid 1990s just over one third of the labour force worked standard hours each week. About one-third worked overtime and just under one-fifth work part-time.
Amongst the full-time workforce, working longer became the order of the day. Since the late 1970s the proportion of full-timers working standard hours of work dropped significantly and the proportion working very long hours rosen dramatically. In the late 1970s, most full-time workers � about two thirds � still worked from 35 to 40 hours per week. By the late 1990s, this group were in the minority: less than one half of full-time workers were doing normal hours; the majority were now working extended hours. The proportion of full-timers working very long hours � more than 48 per week � nearly doubled over this time period, jumping from 19 per cent of all full-timers to 32 per cent. The period when a new era of long hours got underway was the end of the 1981 recession. As the economy moved into growth, a new way of working emerged.
What we appear to have witnessed is the emergence of defacto new labour market standards, but not of a universal nature. At the bottom of the labour market is the emergence of a new standard of 'churning' between different labour market states. At the top is a new standard of rising hours of work along with rising incomes. And common to all is a rise in the intensity in the pace of work and apparently chronic job enlargement.
Disadvantage percolates across the entire labour force. It clings most tenaciously to the long term unemployed, it dogs the footsteps of the precariously employed, and it furrows the brow of the mature-age under-employed.. The last two decades in Australia have shown that most new job opportunities go to new labour market entrants and to the more recently unemployed. The outcome of increased 'labour market flexibility' is not a shift from one compartment (unemployment) to another (employment), but rather a more rapid expansion in low-paid precarious employment. A new standard of precariousness appears to be becoming the hallmark of a growing proportion of Australia workers.
At the other end of the labour market, standards of quite a different nature are taking shape. Here the emerging issue is extended hours of work and work intensification. While new standards appear to be emerging on the question of working time there is evidence that the new arrangements are not necessarily desired by a significant proportion of the people concerned. The end result of all these developments appears to be rising levels of work intensification and job enlargement
It is clear that the dynamics involve far more than 'wages', 'jobs' and 'casualisation'. Rather, what we find are important connections between market competition, wages, job quality and their subsequent feedback effects on the level and composition of labour demand.
'Third way' style policies failed totally to grapple with these realities in Australia. The vision behind the ALP's policies of the 1980s and 1990s was that of the market as neither 'master' nor 'servant', but rather 'colleague.' As such it was seen as a valuable partner in meeting the challenges of 'globalisation.' The reality, however, was that the market that was the senior partner, with the ALP Government doing nothing to upset the underlying dynamics of consumption and investment. The end result was that the dynamics of accumulation based on inequality merely intensified during its tenure of office. Clearly the challenge for policy is to build on the best of the classical wage earn model and escape both its limitations and those of the 'third way'. How is this to be done?
After the classical wage earner and beyond the third way: redefining the basic categories for understanding and regulating work
The preoccupation with labour related issues as the pivotal policy area for competitive success is misleading and unhelpful. Labour is only one factor of production. To put the matter starkly - the best trained, most flexible and cheapest workforce in the world cannot make up for inadequacies in the operation of capital markets and policies and institutions of industry development. At best industrial relations and labour related policies can complement a wider policy mix. They can never work effectively in the context of a deficient policy framework. This is especially the case given the dynamics of accumulation based on inequality noted earlier.
It is important to outline what a new approach to labour related policy might look like as a potential complement to such a policy mix. For just as labour related policy cannot solve all economic problems, equally policies on macroeconomic management, industry development and capital markets will not (on their own) directly address problems such as non-standard forms of work, changing business structures and inadequate training arrangements.
When devising a new approach to labour related issues the priority must be to address concrete problems in an innovative way. Such an approach requires that the core assumptions underpinning policy are carefully assessed. Given the analysis of developments in the 1980s and 1990s in Australia it is clear that the assumptions informing the classical wage earner model have serious limitations in providing a guide to practice. If policy about work related issues is to engage more effectively with these new realities the basic categories underpinning it need to change.
In place of the classical wage earner model we propose a more encompassing 'working life model.' At the core of this model is a different conception of the essential elements of a system of employment. Workers should be defined more broadly as people who work for multiple employers over the course of key phases of their life cycle, within the context of integrated industrial and social security rights provided by the state.
The first issue that requires consideration concerns the categories used to define labour as a productive input. As the material on developments in the 1980s and 1990s showed, the dynamics driving inequality in the labour market involve more than a simple interaction of 'employers' and 'employees'. The focus needs to be on 'suppliers of labour' and the appropriate standards needed in the contemporary labour market. Instead of regulating work on the basis of the formal legal status of 'employee' and 'permanents,' rights and obligations should arise universally where ever labour is expended in the course of a commercial transaction. Experience in New South Wales with the regulation of 'unfair contracts' for sub-contractors in road transport and construction provide good examples of how 'new rights' can protect the suppliers of labour whether they be executives or contractors, casual or permanent employees Equal attention needs to be given to the new realities associated with employer structures and behaviours. Competitive pressures in the product and capital markets are forcing growing numbers of employers into an increasingly vicious cycle of reducing employment, wages and conditions. Acting in isolation, employers often have little choice. What is needed are new institutional arrangements which enhance flexibility at the workplace level through greater coordination and the pooling of risk at the multi-employer level. Examples of such arrangements include central funds for worker entitlements such as long service leave, severance pay and superannuation (as currently operate in construction) and group training schemes Under these more collective arrangements, the burden of honouring work-related entitlements is shared.
Once the rights and obligations of workers and employers are defined in new ways, it is also necessary to find new ways of integrating industrial and social rights. Social policy should not operate as an after-thought, as an attempt to patch up problems generated by the market. Rather, social policy should be integrated with industrial relations policy from the outset, and it should be based on a coherent vision of 'working life rights'.. Gunter Schmid has written at length in this area and his proposals includes institutional arrangements to provide decent job opportunities for those wishing to deviate from 'standard time employment' at various stages of their lives He devotes most attention to five different types of transitional labour markets, the transitions between:
� education, training and employment;
� domestic work or private activities and gainful employment;
� short-time work and full-time work;
� unemployment and employment; and
� full-time work and retirement.
At present, many workers involved in such transitions have only a marginal or precarious attachment to the mainstream labour market. Schmid argues for policies which deal with these precarious situations by formalising transitional labour markets and thereby providing an alternative to the growth of the 'secondary' labour market. In the United States, the secondary labour market takes the form of low-wage jobs. In Europe and Australia, it takes the form of an ever growing group dependent on social security payments. For Schmid, transitional labour markets are a mechanism which could grow in recessions and contract during booms, thereby dampening the more extreme effects of swings in the economic cycle.
Schmid's proposals clearly provide an alternative approach to the kind of subsidised low-wage sector which would result from a wage cuts / tax credits system so popular with third way policy makers. The policy debate must shift from subsidising low paid work to finding ways to co-finance more efficient and fairer transitional labour markets. Schmid and Auer have identified four criteria to help evaluate policy proposals in this area. They argue good transitional labour markets have the following features
� first, they empower individuals faced with critical life events; just sending in a pay slip for income protection is not sufficient (Criterion 1: Empowerment)
� second, they support evolving local networks and public-private partnerships for implementation; just to leave it to the local public employment service is not sufficient (Criterion 2: Cooperation)
� third, they provide every incentive to 'activate' passive expenditures for effective employment promotion; the challenge is to save money by spending at the right time and at the right place (Criterion 3: Dynamic Efficiency)
� fourth, they support transitions back to the 'regular' labour market rather than into secondary and dead-end jobs (Criterion 4: Sustainable Employment)
If workers are to have a real choice in balancing work and other commitments and interests, and if they are to achieve more security as they move through different stages of their life, then they need supportive structures to minimise any losses associated with exercising such choices. At the same time if new transitional labour market arrangements are to be politically and economically viable, they also need to offer something to employers.
Gazier argues that the 'co-financing' of new intermediary arrangements 'should be considered the central wage principle of transitional labour markets...' An example of how such arrangements might work is provided by Work Foundations in Austria, which aim to provide support to retrenched workers, rather then leaving them to handle the transition on their own. The foundations are funded from four sources:
� a levy of � of one per cent of earnings on the remaining workers at the establishment;
� a matching level of finance from the company doing the retrenching;
� a contribution from the redundant workers themselves from their payouts; and
� a contribution from the government.
These foundations provide training and labour market intelligence for unemployed workers. All parties have a strong interest in seeing the redundant workers find new employment as soon as possible so as to reduce the demand on their contribution
In summary, the innovative part of this notion of transitional labour markets is that it moves beyond seeing social policy as just alleviating 'poverty', and embraces questions of social inclusion. And social inclusion means working in jobs based on proper social standards when it comes to wages and hours, not working in low-quality jobs which marginal employers are prepared to create because of government subsidies (such as tax credits schemes). Transitional labour markets provide a policy framework which takes us beyond the impoverished visions of the future which bedevil the current debates. It poses the question in a more constructive way: how do we raise social and community standards? Not, how do we cope with their demise?
Conclusion
Within a market economy competition has a strong tendency to create, entrench and continually enlarge the number of marginal jobs that are low paid. The reality of such a trajectory has been evident in Australia over the last 15 years with increased casualisation, growing fragmentation in hours of work and a growing proportion of low paid jobs within industries, as well as across the economy at large. All these developments have led to a profound increase in inequality in wages, hours of work and employment insecurity. In short, after 13 years of Labor Government following, for much of the time, 'third way' style policies Australia has inherited a legacy of greater economic and social inequality and a deep-seated decline in the quality of working life for most people.
Clearly the precepts of the classical wage earner model suffer major limitations as a guide to policy in the current situation. Equally, 'third way' style initiatives have merely exacerbated current trends. Their preoccupation with supply side issues, in particular, results in systematically ignoring the key causes of most labour market problems: institutional shareholders, their management agents and the arrangements they devise that restructure work. In getting beyond the limitations of both the classical wage earner and 'third way' approaches to regulating work, more encompassing categories of labour, jobs and rights concerning working life are needed. Ironically practice concerning such issues as the regulation of contractors and the emergence of progressive labour hire arrangements appears to be running ahead of policy on some of these issues. The challenge is to build on practical, progressive gains in leading sectors to establish new standards for new realities. In this context it is vital that policy debate grapples with the challenge of how best to manage the rights of the citizen at work and beyond, and over the entire life cycle. Unless the debate engages with this challenge, policy and analysis about work will be distracted by counter-productive 'third way' style solutions or nogstalgic attempts to revive an approach to labour market regulation from a earlier era.
This is an edited version of a much longer paper by John Buchanan and Ian Watson
by Neale Towart
Neale Towart |
Many of the unions represented on the badges have disappeared, reflecting the changed nature of the workplace over the past century. The Wool and Basil Workers, Agents, Canvassers and Collectors Union of NSW and the Trolley Draymen and Carters Association for example.
Sadly Smith died recently, which is why the badges are now being sold, but Labor Council hopes to purchase them as foundation stone of a Labour History Museum, to be part of the rejuvenated Trades Hall.
As Smith said in the introduction to his book, "The wearing of a badge or emblem to show pride in membership has a long tradition within Australia's trade unions, and commenced with the formation of the union movement in the mid-nineteenth century. The early records of the Eight Hour Day Marches show that unionists wore identifying emblems, usually in the form of different coloured ribbons or rosettes, with the organizing committee members wearing hand-engraved silver badges, from at least the 1880s.
Although a small number of unions used metal badges in the late nineteenth century, the majority were issued from the turn of the century until the 1950s. Their use was encouraged by the fashion of wearing suits with a badge on in the lapel, or the fob watch and chain on which the old style badges hung. The design usually incorporated tools appropriate to the trade, or an emblem equally symbolic. When the small scale is considered, who could not be impressed by the intricate details of the locomotive and viaduct on the 1892 issue of the NSW Locomotive Engine Drivers and Cleaners Association; or the image of the actor on the stage, complete with scenery and footlights, as issued by the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association; or the ornate design incorporating the old-fashioned lace-up boot of the Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation?
The importance of badges to the trade unions is exemplified by the Brisbane Tramways strike in 1912, when the ban on the wearing of their badge while on duty was the catalyst that ultimately led to 43 unions joining the strike.
This continues in workplaces today. Lat year at the Labor Council Organising conference, an SDA workplace delegate told how she encouraged members to wear their badges to work, and found it helped greatly in solidarity and identification with other workers.
Burswood Resort attempted to stop LHMU members wearing union badges but the full bench of the W.A. Industrial Commission ruled it was "an industrially unfair infringement on the proper ability of union members to express their membership in the workplace, promote their organization and their interests as members of that organisation."
One of the badges on sale is from the Sydney Wharf Labourers from 1900 to 1916 which bears the initials of W.M. Hughes. Another rarity is one issued to strikebreakers during the 1917 general strike in NSW. Also the Lilywhite Association badge of 1918. The Association was formed by workers who stayed out for the full duration of the 1917 strike.
Smith was working on another book of his collection when he died last year. He hoped that his publication would "encourage the preservation and further study of the use of badges in the development of our trade unions, and foster their continual issuing in the future."
Richard Brennan |
The effect of the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is to:-
1. Remove the right of injured workers to have a proper hearing of their claims determined by independent judicial body. This was attempted by changes brought in by the Unsworth Government in the 1980's and it was a failure. Following complaints of interference, the Senior Commissioner resigned.
2. Introduces binding medical assessments. Those who perform these assessments do not have to be medically qualified. The local chiropractor at Tumut has completed the equilivent necessary course to become such a person under the Motor Accidents Act and may well be called on under this Bill.
3. Effectively eliminates common law claims by changing the method of assessment of permanent impairment from the current system under the existing legislation to a different system using the American Medical Association Guidelines for permanent impairment. An injured worker would probably have to be dead or a quadriplegic to qualify.
4. As a consequence of changing the basis permanent impairment assessment workers entitlements to lump sum compensation under the Workers Compensation Act for permanent disabilities and for pain and suffering will be very greatly reduced. In addition, a threshold has been introduced by the Bill into lump sum compensation entitlements.
5. Introduces the appointment of Commissioners for a term which again was tried before by the Unsworth Government and didn't work. There is no appeal from their decisions. They don't even have to have an open hearing and they are only required to give brief reasons with a system of internal review.
6. Replaces the Court with an administrative system.
7. Introduces the AMA Guidelines to assess the permanent impairment.
8. There are aspects of the Bill which on the first glance appear to be an improvement. Examination of the detail indicates they will probably be completely ineffective.
For example: (a) There are special provisions for the commencement of weekly payments of compensation following initial notification of injury. Such payments are to be commenced within 7 days after initial notification unless the insurer has a reasonable excuse. "Reasonable excuses" regularly used by insurers now are that they require further factual investigations or medical examination. In addition, an insurer may require the worker to provide it with a medical certificate or an authority to obtain any information it wishes about the worker. If the worker doesn't comply with this request within 7 days the insurer may discontinue payments. The obligation of the insurer to make such payments ceases if the insurer disputes liability and the whole arrangements does not even apply to self insurers.
(b) On the face of it there are time frames for dealing with lump sums claims which appear very favourable for injured workers. The Bill provides that a lump sum claim must be determined within a month after the injury has stabilised as agreed by the parties or as determined by a medical assessor or within 2 months after the claim has provided all relevant particulars which ever is the later. There is a half page of the Bill taken up by the particulars that must be provided which is a straight steal from the Motor Accidents Compensation Act (more about that later). In addition if the insurer wants a medical practitioner to examine the claimant, the claimant is deemed not to given all the relevant particulars until that examination has taken place. Delays in the current system for insurers to arrange medical examination are extensive. One can only wonder what they will be like under this system.
(c) Provisions for referral of disputes to conciliation for determination on the face of them, appear reasonable. It is not until you read the legislation that you realise there are many grounds upon which determination can be deferred. For example, there can be a deferral pending an outcome of a medical assessment, pending negotiations and lump sum claims cannot be even referred to a Commissioner unless certain preconditions are met.
(d) About the only good news in the Bill is that there is provision for interim payment directions with a presumption that there are warranted unless the claim has minimal prospects of success or the worker has returned to work or the injury was not correctly reported or there is insufficient medical evidence. One can only wonder how many such interim payment directions will be made bearing in mind the loopholes. In addition, such interim payment directions cannot exceed a period of 12 weeks.
9. The changes that are made by this Bill are worse than the changes made to the system by the Unsworth Government in 1987. The reasons are this Bill introduces binding medical panels and there is no obligation for an injured workers case to be heard by an independent judicial officer.
10. An examination of 17 outcomes for referral of claims for industrial deafness by construction workers to medical panels indicates that upon the medical panel assessment, none of them crossed the 6% threshold so as to be entitled to compensation for deafness. Assessments made by the treating ear, nose and throat specialist in every case exceeded 6% yet in every case the medical panels returned a finding of less than 6%. The most extreme example involves a deaf worker being examined by a court medical panel in 1997 and being found to suffer 14.5% hearing loss. He returned to work and was exposed to further noise and his treating specialist in 2000 found that he suffered 31.4% hearing loss. The insurance company's doctor found that he suffered 12.5% hearing loss yet a further medical panel on 12 March 2001 assessed his hearing loss as 4.9% . It must be remembered that the first medical panel and the last medical panel are binding. The system of dispute resolution involving the appointment of Commissioners is convoluted with referrals to the Compensation Court on questions of law that are "novel or complex".
11. In the Daily Telegraph published on 29 March 2001 the Minister for Industrial Relations is quoted as saying "there is no reduction in the level of compensation........". he goes on "at present, workers must be assessed as being 25% permanently injured in order to mount a common law claim. Under the new system that is also the case". It isn't, and the statement is completely wrong.
12. The most charitable interpretation that can be placed upon the Minister's article is that he simply doesn't know what he has done.
13. The Bill introduces into the workers compensation system great slabs of the Motor Accident Compensation Act. This Act is an absolute disaster and its continued operation in its present form is being questioned in many quarters. Victims with serious injuries are not meeting the 10% threshold required to obtain damages under the scheme. There is an example of a victim who was hospitalised for 17 days and medically retired by the employer who submitted a claim to the insurer and was told that he did not meet the 10% threshold. The victim now must go through a complicated bureaucratic procedure to see if he is or isn't over the threshold. If he passes that test he must then go to the claim assessment service. This victim will more than likely miss out. The threshold under the Compensation Bill is two and half times higher than that threshold. The Australian Medical Association has been extremely critical of the scheme and its harshness in relation to the medical assessments based on the guidelines referred to above.
14. Under the Motor Accidents Act, only one matter has been assessed (12 March 2001) with the relevant tribunal being set up in October 1999. In 18 months of operation, only 2 victim has received a settlement and the Government wants to transpose that scheme into workers compensation.
15. In addition, the Motor Accidents Authority reported to the Motor Accidents Council in November 2000 that in the first 12 months of its scheme, insurers took 1.4 billion dollars in premium income and made payments of 14.6 million. This is exactly what will happen to the workers compensation system if this Bill is allowed to proceed.
16. You might think of reading the Bill that current claims for current injuries are safe from the new system. They aren't. The Bill contains regulations to transfer a class or classes of existing claims to be treated as new claims. It provides that those claims cease to be existing claims and become new claims for the purposes of the legislation. This procedure includes common law claims.
17. In summary, if the Bill becomes law, it will annihilate workers access to the common law system and will greatly reduce any lump sum compensation to which they are entitled for work injury. The system enhances the bureaucracy which has taken the system over and will probably increase delays in resolving matters and leave decision making in the hands of two totally uncountable bodies with no real right of appeal or proper review. It will eliminate the Compensation Court which has served to properly compensate injured workers and to protect them from insurers and bureaucrats for so long.
18. The Bill is a disgrace and must not proceed.
|
On 27th February, 2001 the first Congress of East Timor Workers declared an interim federation called the Confederacao Union Trabhalador Timor Lorosa'e (CUTTL). This peak federation is the East Timor equivalent of our ACTU.
A nine member council was elected comprising representatives from the nine industrial sectors present at the Congress. These were teachers, agricultural workers, nurses, construction workers, carpenters, journalists, hotel workers, doctors and dockworkers. A two member executive was also elected. The President is Jose Conceicao and the General Secretary is Ana Mota.
The council of the CUTTL reviewed the draft constitution presented to the Congress. A final constitution will be adopted at the second Congress which is expected to be held sometime after independence.
The trade union movement in East Timor faces many problems. Besides being confronted by the lack of resources, the emerging unions are also fighting against the exploitation of East Timorese workers by some of the foreign (often Australian) companies there, as well as a lack of adequate consultation with trade unions by the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor in the development of East Timor's Labour Code.
APHEDA - Union Aid Abroad, along with the ACTU and a number of Australian unions has assisted the formation and resourcing of unions in East Timor as well as assisting to fund the Congress and helping the establishment of the CUTTL. APHEDA - Union Aid Abroad is also assisting with the placement of a volunteer labour lawyer, Eliza Bergin, to advise the East Timorese trade unions during the drawing up of the Labour Code and also the placement of an asbestos removal expert, Ron Westrupp, a CFMEU delegaste, in Dili during March.
by Jim McDonald
The core of PMS is IDS. IDS contains three elements. Identify your best and most talented performers. Demote them. Finally, sack them or force them into a position where they resign (the latter is called IDR).
"PMS targets individuals. Its principal objective is to rid the organisation of corporate memory and entrenched expertise which might provide an impediment to the PM (Purge Manager)."
Where PMS addresses the whole organisation it is called FEEE. FEEE refers to the key principle of downsizing: Fewer Employees Equals Efficiency. This is said to be particularly effective for providing customer service. The longer the queue being dealt with by a single employee the more productive the employee. The queue may be a physical one but FEEE discourages this approach.
Customers are encouraged to queue on their own phone at their cost. This is called FEEE for service, which is why they tell you your custom is valued.
The employees who remain following a FEEE program often suffer from what is called survivor syndrome (SS). We call these employees the SS. The more senior SS are encouraged to emulate the PM and weed out any other inefficiencies such as creativity, commitment and loyalty to the organisation.
This is a very dynamic strategy leading to two key outcomes. First, much of the work, which was formerly performed by employees, is outsourced. This is commonly known as OSCAR (Outsourcing Staff Competence Accumulates Revenue). OSCAR is strongly supported by consultancies.
Second, the organisation begins to lose market share. It is then taken over by a rival. The new executive management team, called a SEEPS (Superimposed Extra-organisational Executive Purgative Structure), usually then introduces its own FEEE program.
PMS, FEEE, OSCAR and SEEPS are key characteristics at organisational level of a social and economic system called CAPITALISM (Capturing Accumulated Profit and Income while Terminating Alienated Labour In Survival Mode).
At the macro level, the outcomes of the PMs or SEEPS eventually throw the capitalist economy into a state of social and political turmoil. This is called DISCUS (Disequilibrium In Society Caused by an Unemployed Surplus). And the economy slides into negative growth.
Finally, a state of REVOLT arises (Revolution Emanating from a Vast Oversupply of Landless Toilers) and the masses seize the diminished assets of the corporations only to find that they have been SCREWED (Stripped Corporations Reduced to Establishments Without Equity and in Deficit).
|
************
Who cannot honestly say they were not switching from The West Wing to Temptation Island and then back again on Monday night. What is it about the current crop of American television that we love the great shows and hate the awful shows but still we are able to discuss them all in the corridors of our daily lives.
As we head into the new millennium our televisions have become the receptor (or is it reflector?) of postmodern real-life life. From Temptation Island and Survivor through to The West Wing, The Practice and our favourite the postmodern tank girl, with that relaxed off the shoulder dress sense Buffy. What is it about these shows that enable them to simultaneously engross the masses whilst annoying the crap out of so many of us? I believe it provides us with a window into the shallow sides of our souls.
Although much maligned does not Temptation Island draw us in to the real world of the incredibly stupid? Isn't refreshing and intriguing to realise the beautiful people are really as dumb as we have all hoped? And don't tell me you were not sitting there making the decisions on who should be with who and screaming at the TV, "no not him" or "yes get her"?
What is the fascination with Survivor II? Is it finally that our thirst for real blood was satisfied as Michael found himself in the fire? How many of us screamed at the TV, "That one is for the pig you bastard!!!!" Why is this study of communal living and the politics of life so fascinating? Surely it is more than the fact that everyone, except for the token old and tubby participants (Who says equity programs don't work?), are the fine toned and always semi-naked representatives of our little worlds within our global village. These shows provide the opportunity for us to open ourselves up to the possibilities of what we could be or not be within our global village. These shows provide the opportunity for our dark thoughts to surface legitimately as we feel free to vote off those we hate from our own little islands. We are able to participate in something bigger than ourselves.
From the roller coaster ride of real TV we than find sanctuary in the calming and witty West Wing where it does take a village to raise a child. Why can't we have the American Nation anthem too? It is a global world. What is it about the characters that we love? It's the opportunity to frolic around what we think the White House should be, really nice white men in suits making the correct decisions for us. It's OK to bomb the bastards because they deserve it and Oh for the White House with no interns. We are seeking refuge in what we think the world should be about truth (although its OK to twist it a little because that's how we achieve justice), justice (a smattering of marginalised community representative throughout - although it is still brought to my attention every week that there are no women in positions of power - I will concede that point) and the American way.
These are the same warm feelings generated by the Practice. So what if there are mass murders free on the streets will any of us not stand up for Bobby, a symbol of our own angst-ridden success. He provides the opportunity to be morally bankrupt and still feel good about ourselves. And finally, Buffy everyone's best dressed heroine with great taste. Well except for Reily we all preferred the bad boy Angel who represented the darkness in all of us not this preppy goody too shoes who represents all that is good and wholesome. Buffy provides us with that carefree feeling of doing good with geeky friends who represent our own shortcomings. We feel the exhilaration of slaughtering the evil in our neighbourhood and are also reminded of the fun and happy "Scooby gang" antics that we all want to participate in.
American TV provides us with a lexicon of emotions and images that represent us while at the same time repulse us. It provides what we want, substantial amounts of shallow crap to immerse ourselves in when the real world is too hard.
|
Their mid-week attempt to clothe themselves in respectability with fee-free accounts for seniors, pensiors and Commonwealth health card holders was an insult to the rest of the community.
Really, it was about heading off Labor's announcement that, in Government, it would legislate to curtail some of the banks' more outrageous bumming off the rest of us.
Legislation, of course, is an anathema to bankers and their backers in the Howard Government. These people believe in self-regulation which is code for doing just as they damned-well please to whoever they want.
Self-regulation is a close ideological ally of market freedom which amounts, it this case, to rogering with impunity then paying some wizened old hack under the table to dissemble on the airaves, and bugger listeners' freedom to know the truth.
It is the freedom to sack thousands, close branches, cut services, change rates unilaterally, renege on deals with customers - you'd be dead-set mad to bank on getting cash you're entitled to out of ASB or Commonwealth ATMs on Parramatta Rd - whilst, in return, jealously guarding the right to ramp-up fees whenever you feel like it.
Ahem, just one question here, assholes - fees for what?
Oh, I get it, you want the freedom to charge me for the privilege of lending you my money - okay, but what about when the boot's on the other foot?
Duh!
Fair dinkum, all this, and they've got a captive market.
Here's one freedom a few Aussie wouldn't mind being able to exercise - the freedom to never have to darken their doors again.
Unions and the Labor Party, alike, seem to have forgotten the old demand to be paid in cash.
After walking past closed banks and being dudded by an ATM, yet again, on the way to interminable queueing, the old mattress starts to look pretty attractive.
Even the prospect of having your wages direct credited to the Jolly Green Giant has a certain practical appeal. At least you'd get better, cheaper access than any bank is likely to privide.
So, good on the pensioners and card holders. They're getting no more than they deserve.
But what about the rest of us, ya bums?
by Jim Maher
|
To be fair, taking such samplings at the end of March is not all that helpful. The weather's sunny, cricket finals are still being played and the general populous has yet to convert to footy mode.
There are however, some worrying trends set to continue well into the darker, cooler months. Lack of leadership, and branding, head that list.
Let's be frank, David Moffett is a tosser and is generally perceived as such. The former union referee and administrator personifies the identity problems the code is struggling with.
Having effectively flicked much of its tribal support base, rugby league struggles for acceptance with a new demographic. Sure, the beautiful people roll up for prawns and wine on big occasions but that only serves to deepen dissatisfaction amongst those paying top-dollar for hamburgers and flat beer in the cheap seats - and the buggers stay away in droves from run-of-the-mill encounters which are the bread and butter of every code.
Moffett wants a sterile, safe, middle-class game played by athletes who are non-controversial. Unfortunately, the sport's base, still hankers for characters, risk, flair and a bit of biffo for good measure.
While Moffett's fellow travellers talk alcohol bans, many believe players would be better served, and respected, if they wandered down to the local after training and had a few schooners with their fans.
Trouble is, the way the NRL has ordered life, it's pretty damned hard to figure out where the local is.
Moffett's regime is about hype rather than substance and wall-to-wall Fox Sport coverage only reinforces the problem.
In hindsight, Graeme Hughes, Paul Vautin and Peter Sterling might have done the game a bloody great dis-service. Because they handled microphones so capably it seems to have got into the heads of sports producers that former footballers make good commentators. Every weekend, Fox proves it is not necessarily so.
Put the microphone muddlers with anchors who know little about the game and its not a very inspiring combination. Big names and pretty faces beat competent, interesting broadcasters in another hands-down victory for the hype camp.
Mix that with the current, on-field taste for risk-free predictability and you've got just about the blandest dish on the sporting menu.
There is no spice in sight. Fox gives bread and water coverage while the administration exudes the charm and warmth of a dumpling.
By and large, players are just as funny, silly, smart and engaging as they always have been but by the time they are strained and refined for our consumption most of the flavour has evaporated.
Like these soirees the NRL organises, there's only finger-food on the menu, which probably explains why Hopoate's taste for date has got everyone drooling.
|
Online Campaigning for Workers Comp
With the introduction of a new bill this week to radically over-haul the NSW Workers Compensation system which with disadvantaged injured workers, the Labor Council has launched a campaign website http://www.labor.net.au/compo. The site is a bit rough, but since the announcement was only on Wednesday I'm pretty impressed in the turnaround time. There is a load of information on the proposed changes as well as details of the campaign to bring the government into discussions with the union movement.
The Future of Work
The Triple J Morning Show ran a series last week on the how the workplace and the nature of work is changing. As a part of the series they launched a website located at http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/morning/work/ , the site feature information on the previous forums, message boards and different opinions on what people see as the future of their employment.
The Party Gets with the Program
The National Secretariat of the ALP has finally given their site a makeover http://www.alp.org.au. Whilst the navigation and content is pretty much the same as the old site, it is now more attractive and not so confusing. However the site does require a major over-haul before the election.
Call Centre Workers Organise Online
Several months ago an alliance of call center unions launched a website called Call Central http://www.callcentral.com.au. It contains information on the Call Centre Industry Code of Practice, the ACTU's call center campaigns and information for call center workers on how to organise.
Scoring hits on Bush
A very cleaver site has been launched called Bush Follies http://www.bushfollies.com/ which focuses on the funny side of the Dubbya Administration (like there is another side). It features sections on "Bushisms", the "Bush Log" as well as genuine information on the plunders of the Administration. But my personal favorite is the count down clock which informs you of how many days, hours, minutes & seconds are left of the Bush Administration.
New Labour Think Tanks
The Institute for Public Policy Research http://www.ippr.org.uk is a UK based, labour oriented think tank that has put out some interesting arguments on privitisation, welfare and the role of Labour Governments in relation to society and culture.
Foxcroft is the brains behind a new service in turning bosses into bigger bastards. Her company DBM prides itself on being a "worldwide leader in providing strategic solutions that help align their workforces to meet changing business needs". We think this is a euphemism 'for shafting the little guy'.
She's come to our attention because she's sunk to issuing media releases in a bid to drum up business. A local hack asked us for comment and sent it over. When it arrived, we thought it was a hoax.
It starts with an attention grabber: managers who sack staff double their usual risk of a heart attack in the next week. We call that rough justice, Foxcroft calls it a business opportunity.
If the pretence isn't silly enough, the substance is downright naff. What follows is a series of down home advice for employers wielding the axe.
Little pearls of wisdom like:
- "Prepare the message: write a script you will use during the meeting;"
- "Prepare the materials: explain the rationale and prepare all severance information in writing"
- "Prepare yourself emotionally: Don't assume personal responsibility for the termination".
Foxcroft also offers a range of suggested responses should the employee happen to get angry. They give a fair indication of what's going on inside this Tool's head:
Why was I selected? Who made the final decision?
Suggested Response: The selection was based on a number of factors, including individual job skills, work experience, organisational needs, tenure and performance. These decisions are always difficult, but they were reviewed and approved by management.
What recourse do I have?
Suggested Response: Employees are always free to talk with a higher level of management. However, because management has already carefully reviewed the decision, it is unlikely that the outcome will change.
Can I continue to work for a period of time?
Suggested Response: No. We feel it is in your best interest and the organisation's that you utilise your time exploring employment opportunities outside the company. That is also why we have brought in an Outplacement firm to assist you I preparing for your job search.
Can I be re-hired?
Suggested Response: You are eligible for re-hire. However, the probability of that is unlikely. That is why you should concentrate your efforts on finding employment outside the company.
I want to talk with Mr/Ms "X" (eg the Manager's boss)
Suggested Response: Of course you are free to make an appointment to see him/her, but I must tell you that he/she is fully aware of the decision and supports it.
I can't understand why I can't be considered for something else?
Suggested Response: Before this decision was made, every effort was made to explore other options.
How can you do this to me after so many years?
Suggested Response: The reorganisation was necessary for business reasons.
So there you have it. In a world of almost unlimited management prerogative, Foxcroft proves that nothing exceeds like excess.
We can only hop the day is soon when she is summonsed to an office and told "The selection was based on a number of factors ..." Of course, we'd take another more direct tack. "You are a the Weakest Link. Your Are a Tool. Goodbye".
© 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/90/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 |