NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa has made the call, saying it was only trade union pressure that prevented the Carr Government going down a track that would have cost the WorkCover scheme a further $800 million.
Privatisation of the workers compensation scheme was a key recommendation of a 1997 inquiry into the workers compensation system by KPMG's Richard Grellman.
After the report was handed down, the Carr Government placed privatization into legislation to take affect from October 1998.
But concerns raised through the Work Compensation Advisory Council forced the government to amend that legislation, taking out the enactment date to give the Minister discretion on when privatization should occur.
Throughout this period, members of the Advisory Council have told Workers Online they were lobbied furiously by the insurance industry, most notably HIH and FAI, with Ray Williams taking a personal role.
"It appears HIH was banking on getting a slice of the WorkCover business," a source has told Workers Online. "We are just lucky we convinced the government to delay privatization."
The Labor Council is calling on the Carr Government to repeal the legislation giving the NSW Minister for Industrial Relations the right to privatize the workers compensation scheme
Costa says the repeal of private underwriting should be added to amendments to the workers compensation legislation going before the State Parliament in the current session of Parliament.
The entire Sydney construction industry will stop work for half a day on Tuesday to draw attention to WorkCover's failure to police safety and ensure employers and contractors properly cover their workers.
CFMEU construction division official Brian Parker says the latest incident involves an accident which occurred on April 30 at the Bovis Lend Lease Sydney ports Terminal project.
"A member of the AMWU, Luigi Bareiri, was pinned between the Genie 34' knuckleboom that he was operating and an overhead steel boom," Parker says. "he was taken to hospital and received treatment for cruch injuries."
But despite the unions and companies involved on the site completing their own reports and investigations and forwarding them to WorkCover, there has still been no response by the Authority.
Parker says this is a major concern because the equipment involved, the knuckle-boom, is used across several industries.
"There are questions about the safety of specific equipment, as well as the adequacy of Australian standards for this type of equipment," he says. "This is a clear example of where WorkCover could be acting decisively to prevent further injuries."
CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson says the role of WorkCover needs to be highlighted, despite the agreement on the Della Bosca reform package reached this week.
"Unacceptable safety standards continue to cause serious injury and death to our members," Ferguson says. "We intend to continue our campaign until these issues are given a priority by the State Labor Government.'
Some Joy for Ferguson
Meanwhile, some good news from Ferguson following the decision by Joy Engineering to withdraw legal action against him personally.
The company, which waged a bitter lock-out against its workforce last year, was suing Ferguson and the CFMEU for $1.5 million for supporting the workers on their picket.
While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, Ferguson says he's "satisfied" with the outcome.
Police officers this week voted to authorise their union to place bans on revenue collection if necessary, as contentious aspects of the package were referred to an inquiry ot be chaired by former ALP Attorney-General Terry Sheahan.
Power workers across the state have also held mass meetings to authorize bans on overtime to be called by the leadership of the Electrical Trades Unions.
But a planned statewide Day of Action, which would have disrupted the handing down of the State Budget has been put on hold.
"We have decided to keep our powder dry," secretary-elect John Robertson said, after the workers compensation campaign committee met to consider the deal struck between the Labor Council and Industrial relations Minister John Della Bosca.
Council's Resolution Adopted
Earlier, Della Bosca made significant progress towards quelling trade union concerns with his package by fully accepting a resolution passed by the Labor Councile xecutive last week/.
Under the deal:
- the government will proceed with amendments to the statutory scheme - but has agreed to accept a right of appeal from the decisions of medical panels.
- the government will convene a panel of medical experts to develop assessment guidelines, with a commi5tment that injured workers will not be left worse off.
- the vexed issue of common law will be referred to an inquiry, to be chaired by Justice Sheahen and include representatives of trade unions and employer groups.
- the outstanding issues of workplace safety and employer compliance will now be included in the reform package.
The Labor Council has engaged Jeff Shaw, QC, to ensure that any amendments put before the Parliament, reflect the substance of the deal accepted this week.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa has stressed the issue is not closed, but says unions should work through the agreed process over the coming months.:
But he's warned is the government moves away from the agreement, he will have no hesitation in reconstituting the campaign committee to insure injured workers are protected.
"CPSU has been in talks with the company for a new enterprise agreement for the last 6 months, but the process is going nowhere," said CPSU spokesperson Stephen Jones.
Last month the company tried to counter a growing union presence by sacking 60 members from the sensitive data centres which manage the Telstra database. This sparked a four-day strike by workers before a more worker friendly redeployment agreement was reached.
"It would be unfortunate if members have to resort strikes again, but we are committed to getting a positive result," said Jones.
The CPSU is planning to link up with IBM worker organisations around the globe to garner support for our campaign. We'll be looking to form alliances with other community groups who have an axe to grind against companies like IBM.
"It is a David and Goliath battle" said Jones.
"We aren't put off by the fact that IBM is multinational. With the advent of the internet and growing disquiet about outsourcing and globalisation, companies like IBM can no longer treat their workers or the public with arrogance. Workers around the world are feeling less secure, but importantly, they are fighting back
Workplace relations minister Tony Abbott introduced a Bill into Parliament this week that purports to outlaw service fees being written into enterprise agreements.
The service fee approach as emerged as one way of ensuring non-union members pay their way. A majority of workers can vote to place a clause in an enterprise agreement - a principle upheld by the Australian Industrial relations Commission earlier this year.
Under the Abbott Bill, any form of bargaining fee would be banned unless a person agreed to the fee in writing. In his explanatory notes to the Bill, Abbott claims syuch clauses breach freedom of association principles.
The Democrats have previously indicated their support for principles of 'freedom of choice' but with a new leadership team, trade unions will be arguing they should block the legislation in the Senate.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the Democrats' position will be a good test of their new leadership direction.
"While Andrew Murray has indicated he would support this sort of legislation in the past on 'freedom of choice' grounds, we would be hoping that the new leadership team has a better understanding of the issue," Costa says.
"As we have argued in the past - the 'freedom' to benefit form the work of trade unions in negotiating wage increases, is akin to the 'freedom' not to pay taxes or council rates.
"It is a service all benefit from and the loyal members of the trade union movement are sick of footing the bill for those who don't feel they need to be part of the collective."
The analysis reveals that a pre-retirement couple with one income of $32,000 per annum will pay $98.46 more in tax each week than a retired couple on the same income. A younger single wage earner on $20,000 per annum will pay $48.65 more per week in tax than a retired single person on the same income.
ACTU President Sharan Burrow said the figures showed the Government had abandoned working families hit by the GST by making the tax system even more unfair.
"People on low-to-medium incomes are paying for the GST but get nothing while others on the same income get a major tax break - that is completely unfair," Ms Burrow said.
"It's even more unfair when you consider that working families are struggling to pay housing, child care and education expenses that many retirees no longer have to meet.
"This Budget has cemented a new fundamental inequity into the tax system. It has eroded any advantage for working people from the family payments that are meant to compensate people for their extra costs.
"The tax changes also diminish the incentive for older workers on low-to-medium incomes to continue working towards their retirement.
"These divisive and destructive changes demonstrate again that Mr Howard has no compassion for working families badly affected by his policies. Why would working people vote for him again?
"The Budget recognised the burden of the GST on retired Australians, but working people are suffering under the same burden. Last year's GST compensation for a worker on the Minimum Wage of $400 amounted to a tax cut of only $9.12 a week."
Ms Burrow said the Government was boasting about handing out an average $60 a week to supposed Liberal voters, but it would only support a pay rise of $10 a week for Australia's lowest paid workers in this year's Living Wage Case.
The Municipal Employees Union says it has secured agreement from the Local Government Association - which represents city councils - to deliver 12 weeks paid maternity leave.
While this falls short of the public sector standard of 15 weeks, the MEU's Paul Reid says it is an important first step in achieving parity with other public servants.
But the NSW Shires Association - dominated as it is by the National party - is refusing to come to the party and bring in similar provisions for country councils.
The MEU will rally outside the Shires Association Annual Conference next Tuesday at the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney.
Birth No excuse for Long Service Leave
Meanwhile, the NSW Teachers Federation has raised concerns with provisions of the Long Service Leave Act and its impact on casual teachers.
Under the Act, service for Long Service Leave is not recognized is a worker takes a break of more than two months.
While there are a range of exceptions in the Act - including illness and injury, leave granted by the employer and slackness of trade - there is no exception for child birth.
Teachers Fed general secretary John Hennessy has called on the Act to be amended to recognize childbirth.
Four thousand steelworkers spent three days on strike this week over the company's offer of emergency services staff employed through SERCO.
While management figured the general workforce would stand by while members off staff were forced onto AWAs, the entire workforce took swift action, setting up 24-hour pickets on seven separate entrances to the plant/
By the week's end, the workers had secured a recommendation from the NSW Industrial Relations Commission that the AWAs be placed on hold while BHP and SERCO revisit their strategy.
Australian Workers Union official Andrew Whilley says the outcome is a win for the workforce and a message to management that they would not be able to bring in individual contracts by stealth.
"There was a clear strategy to establish an AWA beach-head inside the plant," Whilley says. "It's not the end of the road, but the swift action by workers has one this battle anyway."
The edict from management at the Newcastle Reservation Centre comes as the workers wait for their call center to be installed with Qantas technology.
Workers were originally told to take annual leave, but when the union advised them that this was in breach of the Annual Leave Act, they were told to take the leave or attend work.
But those attending work have been told they have no work to do and cannot conduct any non-work activity - including reading or studying.
ASU clerical division state secretary Michael Want says this means workers are being forced to sit in a room and do nothing all day in an attempt to bore them into taking annual leave.
The ASU wants the workers who are attending work to be given training while the technology is upgraded.
Petition for Impulse Workers
Meanwhile, workers across the airline have called for public support in their battle to save the jobs of more than 200 colleagues sacked in the Qantas takeover.
These sackings occurred despite assurances that the Qantas-Impulse deal would save jobs.
Impulse CEO Gerry McGowan told ABC News Online on May 2 that the Impulse-Qantas deal was "in the right interest to ensure 1,000 direct and indirect personnel retain their jobs".
In the media statement announcing the deal, Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon said: "This agreement will secure over 1,000 jobs at Impulse. While the new arrangements could involve some transfers for a small number of Qantas staff, these staff will be offered ongoing employment with Qantas".
Former Impulse workers are circulating a petition calling on Qantas management to do the right thing and provide jobs for all Impulse staff. Former Impulse staff have received a great response from the public and circulated petitions in airports, workplaces and shopping centres.
download the petition at http://www.qld.asu.asn.au
The drivers, members of the Transport Workers Union, made permanency a key demand in tough negotiations that included a snap-strike earlier this month.
But TWU official Glen Nightingale told Labor Council the pressure had won big benefits for the drivers, with an agreement to transfer casuals to permanent status after an agreed period of service.
The drivers have also won the right to safety training - including personal protection and self-defence classes.
"This should hopefully ease the concern of drivers about their own personal safety and that of the public and better equip them to deal with dangerous situations that arise," Nightingale says.
The deal also includes an 11 per cent wage increase, to be delivered over three years.
by Mark morey
This is just one of numerous rip-off tactics that have been used by the bosses of Champion Uniforms Marrickville. Around thirty workers sacked from Champion Forms are picketing their former workplace in a bid to highlight their recent sacking by administrators. The workers, sacked with little warning have not received any redundancy pay, they have not received their annual leave payments or any other entitlements.
Meanwhile, the AMWU has discovered the bosses hiding behind a company structure and high finance scheme that is nothing more than another outrageous sham. The AMWU have discovered that Champion Forms comprises of at least seven related companies which protect the bosses while leaving workers with nothing. One company employed the workers, while a second company collected payments for completed work and another company was responsible for the property assets. Additional companies, which are still operating, hold the assets and continue to profit. All the companies have the same directors.
This is another example of where a company goes into receivership, as in the case of Grenadier and National Textiles, and the workers are left without a job and their legal entitlements. When will this Federal Government do something about this issue? How long do the workers of Australia have to wait before their legal entitlements are protected with payouts not dependent on whether the directors are related to prominent Australians?
When will Tony Abbott pull his head out of his on going quest to be Prime Minister and start doing the job he has? Tony something is really happening out there and you are missing in action.
This Government is happy to chase and vilify easy targets such as people receiving income support payments, migrants and refugees, but when it comes to regulating greedy bosses with all their legal and accounting manoeuvrers it all appears to be a little too hard. If you're not a boss then it's all BAD LUCK. This government is not sneaky, it's just down right dishonest and lacks any backbone when it comes to protecting the rights of workers and their families.
These situations are no longer tolerable. If Centrelink overpays you the government hounds you, if you rip off workers entitlements you get to go free. Howard's battlers are short changed once again.
The CPSU is delighted with the decision, claiming it brings hope to many worried by government outsourcing and vindicates members' opposition to 'take it or leave it' AWAs.
Staff involved in the case were originally employed by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). In 1998 the Howard government disbanded the CES and set up Employment National Limited. Many ex-CES staff wanted to follow their work to the new company but were told AWAs would be compulsory.
CPSU section secretary Jenness Gardner applauded the outcome.
"Let's not forget the 'duress' imposed by Employment National was enthusiastically supported by the Howard government, and these AWAs were rubber-stamped by the Office of the Employment Advocate," she said.
"Employment National staff were bullied into accepting AWA's. Employment National used subsidiary labour hire companies and staff transfers to reduce worker entitlements. This was a complex industrial strategy, not unlike Patrick's Stevedores."
At this stage, the Federal Court decision only deals with some members of the class action and further hearings will occur in June.
by Andrew Casey
The rates of pay for more than 40,000 bar staff working in NSW, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania have been threatened by Australian Hotels Association application to the Industrial Relations Commission to reduce the pay of hotel workers.
" The AHA wants to reduce the classifications of bar staff who perform work with TAB terminals or pokies from Level 3 in the Hospitality Award to Level 2, " LHMU Hotel Union Assistant National Secretary, Tim Ferrari said today.
" Pub bosses will be taking out of the pockets of bar workers, if they win in this application before the AIRC, about $18.30 per week on the base award rate, plus modest penalties on this amount for weekends for each bar staff employee.
" This is a miserly act by publicans who are reaping huge profits out of their pokie machines.
" In many places pubs are simply being turned into pokie dens - with fewer not more jobs - as bosses seek new strategies to reap more and more profits from punters," the LHMU Hotel Union's Tim Ferrari said.
" The Hotel Union has thought that the publicans had shown their self interest enough during the last few months. But they are at it again.
" This latest act comes on top of:
� the AHA's recent arguments against a Living Wage increase for hotel workers;
� delays in passing an excise decrease in beer prices to customers;
� the AHA criticism of workers and their union who want a smoke free work environment to safeguard their health;
� profits of $43,000 per pokie in NSW hotels last year.
" Workers in pubs need to expose and resist this new attack on their low pay by increasingly wealth publicans.
" We will be calling on bar staff to support union opposition to this claim by their employers," the LHMU Hotel Union's Tim Ferrari said.
)
The ban will come into effect by 2003, and follows the ACTU's recent campaign on the 6th International Day of Mourning, which highlighted the Howard Government's failure to address Australia's record of having one of the highest rates of asbestos-related disease.
"While Mr Abbott refused to do anything about the 1,500 tonnes of raw (chrysotile) asbestos and one million products containing asbestos being imported, Australia was facing an expected 56,000 people to die from asbestos related disease by 2020," said ACTU Secretary Greg Combet.
"I am glad he has heeded our warning but am saddened for the workers who have died from asbestos related diseases through being exposed to the deadly substance at work."
At the rally which was held on April 27 Mr Combet outlined a five-point proposal to eradicate and control asbestos:
1. Ban imports and local production of raw asbestos and products that contain asbestos
2. Establish a public registry of asbestos-contaminated building sites
3. Accelerate the clean-up rate of existing asbestos
4. Ensure better care for asbestos victims
5. Place a global ban on asbestos products
"Although the first step has been achieved, Mr Abbott still has a long way to go to ensure our community is asbestos-free," he said.
The decision now brings Australia in line with Europe's asbestos ban, which came into effect in 1999. All cars made in Europe and imported to Australia cannot contain asbestos in brake or clutch linings. Once they come to Australia, replacement parts can be fitted using products that contain asbestos.
by Greg Turner
The ASU members will present the department with a rescue plan for the Young Peoples Refuge (Leichhardt) where five staff members were given notice of its closure by a new Committee of Management earlier this week.
ASU Branch Secretary Luke Foley condemned the proposed closure and urged the State Government to support the union members' rescue plan:
"This 24 hour a day refuge currently shelters six young women in crisis every night."
"Many are fleeing domestic and other violence and the refuge provides them with emergency shelter as well as immediate support and referral to other relevant services."
Staff at the refuge said they are not accepting the decision to close it.
A meeting of staff held on Wednesday, 23 May, resolved to make the following statement:
"We take young women from right across the State and we look at every referral. We have provided shelter for young indigenous girls fleeing violence in country New South Wales as well as girls from non-English speaking backgrounds. Our service is highly needed and essential. We are outraged the new management committee would even consider closing such a vital service."
Over the past decade the choir has performed at many union activities - from ACTU Congresses to union picket lines.
The choir is currently seeking sponsorship - from just $100 - and support from the broader movement.
One way of showing your support is to turn up to the anniversary concert on Saturday June 16 from 8pm at the Loaded Dog - Annandale Community Centre, Johnson Street, Annandale.
Price is $10, $8 concession. Further inquiries call Kellie Stubbs on 0408 218260
BURMA - an end to forced labor
Burma is ruled by one of the world's most brutal and corrupt military regimes. The regime is forcing 2 million Burmese men, women, children and elderly people to work for the military.
Burma's regime ruthlessly crushes any threat to rule. It denies workers the right to organise.
In November, the ILO agreed to an international campaign of action against forced labor in Burma. The ICFTU has backed the campaign by issuing a Global Unions Action Plan for Burma.
A key part of the campaign is pressuring companies to withdraw trade and investments in Burma, or face public exposure and union-driven consumer boycotts.
The ACTU is calling on affiliate unions to pressure Australian trade out of Burma.
Unions in NSW are establishing a Burma Unions Caucus to support the campaign in 2001
Come to a meeting on:
Wednesday 30th May 5pm CFMEU, 1st Floor, 15 Wentworth Ave, Sydney
We will hear from Burma activists and plan how we can coordinate across our Unions to support the Global Unions Plan for Burma [see attached].
For more information :
� contact Kate Lee [ASU] on 02 9310-4000, 0419 433 309 or
� check out these websites:
http://www.icftu.org - for the ICFTU's Global Union's Plan for Burma
http://www.freeburma.org - for more info on Burma
Politics in the Pub
Speakers: SHARAN BURROWS and ALISON PETERS
Topic: WOMEN IN UNIONS
Date: SATURDAY, JUNE 16TH
Time: 2.00-4pm
Place: ROYAL HOTEL, SPRINGWOOD. (Almost opposite Railway Station,
shopping Centre side).
Unite to defend public education
At the same time the Howard government is putting the boot into pubic education by dishing out an extra $700 million to private schools, the NSW education minister John Aquilina is planning to sell off Marrickville, Maroubra, Hunters Hill and Vauclause High schools. Four local primary schools, Erskinville, Redfern, Waterloo and Alexandria are to be closed and merged into a single school at Cleveland St High.
Do the bureaucrats in the department of education have any idea what this will mean for parents who have been able to send their children to local schools?
The NSW Parents and Citizens Federation has called a monster rally outside State Parliament on Wed May 30. 6pm, State Parliament, Macquarie St
Phone 9690 1977 for details
I have read your article about shangrila dispute and I am glad to see australian unionists genuinely support indonesian workers.
please pass on my thanks as an indonesian to those australian unionists who support the indonesian hotel workers.
kumai
Just a note to say I commend you for you article on Unions Flogged to death. This is a great article about a serious problem which I encountered myself.
I worked at a chartered accountant office called David Wilson who tried to force me to work unpaid overtime. I dont mean 15 minutes or even 30 minutes but he wanted 2 hours of unpaid overtime every night - & charge the clients for the work he got for free.
when i refused he became so nasty that I ended up having to leave due to the stress causing me ill health.
Because of the ongoing attack on unions by the howard costello government, people are not joined together in union as they desperatly need to be. i feel it is because of this that the likes of david wilson feel free to abuse & bully workers.
so once again congratulations on a great article keep up the good work!!!! ELvira Muller (member of Finace Sector Union)
>From recent statements it seems that many MP's underestimate both the source and depth of anger in the community. Fuel prices are only a symptom: most people remember the promises made regarding the supposed benefits of "economic rationalism" and the "level playing field".
When a graduate engineer from the manufacturing field has to drive a bus for a living; along with quite a selection of other former professionals; it leaves time to contemplate what has been lost over the last 30 years.
Our share of the world's manufactured goods has dropped from 4% to less than 1% ; in other words, we have lost over three quarters of our market and have half a million less employed in manufacturing than 25 years ago, despite the population doubling.
Where we had a multitude of privately owned newspapers and radio stations, we now have a couple of media moguls telling us (and our politicians) what to think and do.
Where the Australian dollar was highly regarded, it has sunk to third world level.
Where we had public banks and utilities giving reliable service we now have foreign owners demanding maximum returns.
Where we had full employment, we now have millions unemployed or under-employed.
Where Australia made nearly everything, made it well, made it to last, we now have to buy imported products which fail in next to no time.
Where we had the concept of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work", we now have a select few, who worship success at any cost, getting extremely rich at others' expense.
Multinationals tell their shareholders that they intend maximizing profits by charging whatever the market will bear and all we get from MP's is "it's a commercial decision and we cannot interfere ".
The labour party has lost focus, forgotten how and why it was formed, and we need someone to stand up for us. Perhaps its time the union movement looked at running its own candidates, or alternatively backing one of the smaller parties, such as Graeme Campbell's "Australia First" .
Regards
Ted Gaida
Dear Sir,
I am not sure if this is the correct forum for a continued discourse on the events of May Day 6/5/01 but in the absence of any other known avenue I wish to make a few further points regarding my original letter to you in WoL95 and the response in WoL96.
First I would like to ask why the letter I sent which was plainly about May Day was placed under the heading "compo:the great tradition"? there being no mention whatsoever of compo in the letter and with three other letters regarding May Day placed in a separate category where is the logic?
Second in response to comrade Sharney Chalmers letter in WoL96 I feel I must point out that my fellow comrade has missed the thrust of my letter. the intentional hyperbole was not symptomatic of "undiagnosed working class hero syndrome" nor was it an attempt to claim pre eminence of the FBEU over other unions or union members rather it was designed to provoke a response from the people who saw fit to abandon the march at the last minute presumably on account of the weather.
In fact if my original letter was too obtuse let me rephrase it here for clarity's sake. if any of the members of the May Day organising committee who were involved in the decision to call the march off read this letter could you please advise what the reasoning was behind the cancellation of the May Day march on 6/5/01?
The presence of comrade Sharney at the march is of course commendable and it is perplexing to me that a person who has "pride in her culture (union), her class (working) and her achievements (largely collective in nature)" should take such umbrage to my letter that she would feel it necessary to personally attack me.
Regardless of that I hope to see comrade Sharney and all my fellow comrades from the various NSW unions at next years May Day march.
Mark Lutherborrow
Satire: Addict Stops Using Smack After Talk With Parents
It is distorted puerile rubbish like this that gives the right wing fuel to condem left wing morality. A lot of us workers are parents, not all undergrads who view the world through JJJ & Backburner on a diet of mackas and dominos.
If the author of that satire thinks it is unreasonable to remind parents of their role in drug abuse prophylaxis, then the author is a dickhead, and I question the judgement and motive of those who run this site.
Bruce Gray
by Peter Lewis
Sharan Burrow |
What is the ACTU's reaction to this week's Federal Budget?
The Howard Government squandered the surplus and abandoned working families. Working families are paying three times over.
First of all they are paying for the increased cost of the GST. The Budget Papers clearly show that the effect of any compensation has been wiped out in just one year. Then they will pay for rising unemployment, which is now tipped to exceed 7% on ABS stats. We know these stats are inaccurate in determining the real levels of unemployment, so it could be as high as 12 or 13%. And thirdly they will pay because the surplus was squandered with no significant investment in essential services, like public education and public health. The small amount of investment in training is so inadequate that we will see some 40,000 young people missing out on a place in TAFE this year. For working families this is an appalling picture in itself.
However in addition you have a look at the discrimination that the Howard Government has now put in place in what is left of the the progressive income taxation system. By catering to the needs of self-funded retirees alone this government has created a situation where systemic taxation discrimination is now entrenched. A couple on $32,000 a week - average weekly earnings, pre-retirement - will pay almost $100 more tax than a couple who are self-funded retirees. This is even harder to take when working families see their parents, who are on age pensions, get no equivalent support - just a token, one-off, $300 - in the face of the promised $1,000. The Government appears to have catered to its own constituency and totally denied the struggle faced by working families and all pensioners and welfare recipients as a result of the GST.
But we do have an ageing population. What would a government that was serious about looking after the interests of older people be doing at this point in the cycle?
First of all you would hope that any Government would recognise that pensioners need a level of income that will enable them to survive with dignity. Any concessions for self-funded retirees should be matched for pensioners and other groups in society with equal or greater needs.
The question is not whether older people should be catered for. Of course they should, but the insult to pensioners is just unbelievable. Likewise the neglect of of low paid workers. If couples earning up to $80,000 a year as self-funded retirees can get a public health card and telephone rental subsidy, with tax concessions of, on average $60 per week, up to $58,000 a year yet the same government would only support a pay rise $10 before tax for low paid working people in the Living Wage Case, then you have got to ask why would working families vote for a Howard Government?
What would you have done differently if you were handing down the Budget this week?
I am not the Treasurer unfortunately but first of all you would want to put some sort of integrated plan in place for Australia's future. If this was the Budget that Howard was going to take to the election, there should have been a number of signals in it about his future plans. What you have actually got, is a mishmash of bits and pieces where he has tried to pacify those groups in his own constituency that he feels he has offended.
Unions would expect a number of just priorities in any fair budget. One, that the Budget acknowledge the pain that has been caused by the GST, and that there be some significant relief in regard to working families. We would want a serious approach to job creation in the face of rising unemployment and serious investment of growth funds into TAFE and training to address the skills deficit. Equally a sustainable approach to regional and rural development would go beyond the tokenism in this budget.
After five years of damage and privatisation this Budget should provide re-investment in essential services including public education - from early childhood to universities - public health, child care, public transport and public housing.
One thing that stands out about this Budget is that it is really about giving payments to different classes of individuals. What does that say about the sort of government we have?
It says that you have got a government that is prepared to break down traditional foundations of Australian social responsibility, like the progressive taxation system. You have got a government who now is going to build systemic inequities into a progressive taxation system in order to favour one group of people. You have a government that is not simply looking at benefits for those most in need, but is looking at how you actually use positive discrimination for classes of people judged to be more worthy than others. That is not the kind of egalitarian base on which Australians would want to see their taxation system working.
I think that the Howard Government can certainly be challenged about their approach to social and income policies on the basis of discrimination. Justice should decree that a Government starts with people most in need and works from this point as the Budget can afford.
Macro economic policy seems to be fairly out of fashion these days. Does the ACTU have a position? Would they like to see a stronger central economic policy being promoted by a federal government?
Governments have to maintain their hands on the levers of economic development. This government has in fact shown that they are prepared to spend to intervene where economic sectors like the building industry are in difficulty. I saw a headline that said "A spending budget that Whitlam would be envious of". Well, in fact Gough Whitlam would never have spent the budget money in such a discriminatory fashion, but nevertheless you have got to have governments who accept that you do have to spend in certain sectors to make sure the economy remains stable.
The pity is that this government has not gone far enough. There is no policy for industry development, and no plan for sustainable infrastructure. There is a heritage fund with no parameters, no directions, no targets such that the environmental movement is very concerned. The infrastructure lobby is scratching their heads when they see contracts for one of the few projects like the Darwin to Adelaide Railway go offshore. The manufacturing sector are in despair that the bulk of the R&D money is on lay-by and won't be paid until the third and fourth year out.
The unions and the ACTU will always promote intervention in the economy to the extent that industry sectors and therefore jobs are viable. Unfortunately there is no coherent plan to give you a confidence that this government can manage such a fundamental role.
Just on a slight tangent: Peter Botsman and Mark Latham put out a book last week called The Enabling State which basically runs the line that rather than putting more money into building government structures, the government should be putting money into community based development schemes. What is your position on that sort of re-orientation?
I haven't read Peter Botsman's and Mark Latham's book. If you are asking do we invest in community development, the answer is yes. If you are asking does government walk away from being responsible for the plight of workers within our communities, the answer is no.
Fundamental social security provisions, public services and indeed, economic policy more broadly are all central responsibilities for government. Australian people want to know that the role of government is taken seriously once again. They want to see government regulate where it is in people's interests. This has been demonstrated overwhelmingly by community anger at the crisis in areas like airline safety, the supply and pricing volatility in essential untilies such as electricity, gas and water and the financial sector as portrayed by the HIH collapse. They want to know that telecommunication services are available, that postal services won't be deregulated such that they cannot be guaranteed to communities across the country.
The roles are fundamental for governments and the Australian people are saying that they want greater focus on these areas. If the question is, should people have more say about where money is spent well, that is something we would always support, provided that it is a collective voice and not about the dominance of individuals.
Finally, Labor is handing down their speech in reply tonight on the Budget. What would be the one thing they could do that would send you the message that they are on the right track?
Labor has to talk about people. What John Howard's Budget didn't do, except for select groups is look at the needs of Australian people, and say: What is it that is our prime responsibility?
We want to see that Labor does something about their responsibility for jobs. That they say something about their responsibility for essential public services, like public education, public health, training, welfare and all those services that give people life opportunities. And of course we want to see that Labor remains committed to rolling back the GST; to relieving working families of the burden of the GST where it is possible in the context of the Budget.
We would urge Kim Beazley to put people first; to balance the needs of people and the economy rather than putting the economy first and ignoring the needs of working families.
|
************
The agreement reached between the Unions and Government on 17 May 2001 set in place a framework for resolving the outstanding issues between them. These issues can be conveniently grouped into five broad categories as reflected in Labor Council's Resolution :
1. The dispute resolution process;
2. The development of guidelines, formula and thresholds;
3. Common Law claims;
4. Employer Non-compliance in the payment of premium;
5. Return to Work issues.
The Government has agreed to:
� Amend the current Workers Compensation Draft Amendment Bill, currently before the house.
� Introduce amendments, which provide for the agreed, dispute resolution process (outlined in the Labor Council's Paper titled "Protecting Injured Workers - A Fairer Alternative").
� Establish an Inquiry into Common Law chaired by Justice Terry Sheehan. The Inquiry will consist of Labor Council, employer and Government representatives on this Inquiry as per the Labor Council Resolution of 17th of May 2001. Labor Council and affiliates will prepare a full and comprehensive submission, which will be presented to the Inquiry.
� The Labor Council has retained the Honourable Jeff Shaw QC to ensure that the new set of amendments reflect the agreement between the Labor Council and the Government in relation to the new dispute settlements.
� The Government has agreed to the majority of the proposals put forward in Labor Councils paper such as:
� A judicial system for the determination of claims (compared to an Administrative System).
� A proper process for medical assessment (not determinative medical panels). The workers will be able to appeal from all medical assessments.
� Workers will be able to select their own doctor from a list of eminent specialists, who are experts in their field. The Workers Compensation Advisory Council will agree to this list.
� Labor Council to nominate their own medical experts to develop guidelines for the assessment for permanent injuries.
� In the interim the status quo for assessing permanent injuries is maintained i.e. the current table of disabilities.
� Labor Council is currently compiling a list of Doctors as its representatives on the working parties. This will be circulated once it is finalised.
� Labor Council will have representation on the Peak Oversight Committee responsible for signing off on the guidelines.
Considerable work is yet to be done in resolving these issues, which involve threshold areas of concern for the labour movement.
1. The Dispute Resolution Process
The Government has proposed the establishment of a new dispute resolution system. It has only provided very minimal information as to how the system will be set up and operated. The Government's proposal includes medical assessment, arbitration and expedited dispute resolution. The major issues to be resolved are:
Medical Assessment
� The manner in which medical assessments and appeals of medical assessments are to be undertaken.
Arbitration
� How the system will operate in relation to arbitration, appeals and cost penalties.
� Who will be appointed to the new system.
� What role, if any, is there for the Workers Compensation Court?
Expedites Assessment for return to work disputes and insurer mis-management of claims
� How will it work?
2. The Development of Guidelines Formula and thresholds
The Unions are concerned that the introduction of American Medical Guideline which adopt an "all of body" approach to the assessment of permanent impairment will result in a reduction in lump sum benefits and also make it harder for workers to meet the current thresholds to allow them to sue their employers for common law damages in the event that injury has occurred as a result of their employer's negligence. The American Medical Guidelines are deficient in many aspects, including the assessment of psychological injury and problems associated with the assessment of back and neck injuries. This needs to be closely analysed. This process will now have the direct involvement of Labor Council.
The effect of the Labor Council resolution is to ensure that the formula for the calculation of benefits and the issue of thresholds are not considered until such time as the medical guidelines are developed. Furthermore any guidelines, formula or thresholds should not disadvantage workers relative to their entitlements in the current system.
3. Common Law Claims
The Government has expressed concerns about aspects of the current Common Law system. The Bill before Parliament sought to address these issues. Any change to the Common Law system has now been deferred pending the outcome of the Common Law Inquiry.
The Inquiry will provide an opportunity to look at the common law system closely, identify problems and provide information. Any amendments can then be considered in an informed way. The Unions will not condone an attack on worker's common law rights but agree that if there are identifiable problems these should be addressed.
4. Employer Non-Compliance
It is a recognised fact that there is a significant problem in workers compensation premium compliance. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union reports 30% non-compliance by contractors in the building industry. The problem is becoming worse. This has resulted in a premium collection system that is not collecting the correct level of premium from across the industry. Legitimate contractors complying with the law are being placed at a competitive disadvantage by unscrupulous operators
Companies fail to comply with their workers compensation obligations in the following ways:
(a) failure to have a workers compensation policy;
(b) underestimating the number of workers they employ including deemed workers;
(c) underestimating the quantum of wages; they pay each year
(d) nominating the incorrect tariff category; ie. pretending that they are operating in low risk industries
(e) engaging in "phoenix" behaviour;
(f) folding companies to avoid high experience rated premiums;
This combines to deprive the managed fund of tens of millions of dollars. WorkCover, under current workers compensation legislation, has proven to be incapable of dealing with this problem. A more innovative approach is required including:
(a) more effective premium collection methods and regulation;
(b) meaningful sanctions which are enforced;
(c) mandatory obligations on principal contractors to ensure compliance by their sub-contract companies
It is only by adopting more radical and direct approaches to the problem will these issues be solved and a level playing field established in industry.
5. Return to Work
The Bill before Parliament does not address the serious issue of employers' failure to provide workers with suitable duties and alternative employment. The provisions in the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1998 are ineffective and more has to be done to make employers provide return to work opportunities.
by Mark Hearn
NRMA Call Centre Consultant Rita Vella with ASU NSW Clerical and Admin Branch Secretary Michael Want. |
Someone is always watching you. 160,000 call centre staff Australia wide know what it's like to be watched, supervisors know when they're at their work stations; when they're away from their desks; even when they take a toilet break. This sort of monitoring can cause a great deal of stress. Recently ASU Branch Secretary Michael Want talked to members at NRMA about the pressures at work and how the ASU can help.
Like all call centre consultants, the staff conversations at NRMA are always monitored. They are supposed to process a call for roadside assistance - or any other enquiry - in 110 seconds. Some consultants can't help taking a little longer. "Some of our consultants like to promote customer service - they like to help the members." ASU Rep Rita Vella recalls when consultants were able to help members - able to reassure a worried spouse, for example, that their partner was alright, the car had been fixed and they were on their way home. The consultants can't do that any more. Sorry, can't give out that information.
Sometimes there are too few operators taking calls, despite the busy workload that churns on through two shifts per day - from 6.30 am till 2.30 pm, then 2.30 to 10.30 pm.
"Staff shortages in call centres is a massive problem that needs to be rectified," said Michael Want.
Watching and listening inevitably leads to assessments and comparisons. Every week, reports are issued comparing individual and team performance.
Every month a major report is issued. Everyone can talk about everybody else, compare and worry - there always seems to be someone who performs better than you do. Surveillance turned into a kind of group stress encounter, all geared to the endless pursuit of "the almighty dollar."
Stress-related leave in all Call Centres is common. At the NRMA it is a product of fielding thousands of calls each week, from harassed members whose vehicles are broken down and the demands to keep jumping over the continually raised productivity bar.
The Australian Services Union (Clerical and Administrative Branch) is taking action to reduce stress for Call Centre staff. NSW Branch Secretary Michael Want says that employers must ease the performance pressure on the consultants and employ more staff. "It is wrong to expect staff to cope with a barrage of tight procedures and endless assessments. Employers need to remember that what is taking place in a call centre is essentially one human being speaking to another. Bearing that in mind might even lead to better customer service - and better productivity."
The ASU recently negotiated a new collective agreement on behalf of the NRMA call centre staff, achieving an 8.5% pay increase.
As Michael Want acknowledges, pay was only the first battle. The ASU also expects NRMA action on health and safety. The Parramatta call centre was opened three years ago and was supposed to be "the best". Best practice appears to be some way off but the Union is working to rectify the problems.
The ASU is currently compiling a call centre survey to accurately identify and resolve staff grievances. "The survey will ensure that our call centre campaigns are focused on what is important to our members", said Michael Want. "For example we're entering into negotiations with the NRMA over KPIs and we want to ensure that the members have a say - the survey will give us the input we need."
Michael Want also urged members to work with their workplace reps. "Some reps feel a little daunted by the challenge of their position but their main priority is to assist their workmates. When members work together they can achieve a lot more," he emphasised.
Many NRMA staff can remember a time when the NRMA placed an emphasis on people, both employees and members.
For ASU rep Rita Vella and her workmates, there's no distinction between the needs of the staff and the customers.
NZ CTU's Paul Goulter |
**************
After 15 years of new right politics in New Zealand we have elected a centre-left Government.
The Labour-Alliance coalition has been in place for 18 months. We are officially mid-term.
The change of Government occurred just in time for the trade union movement, which was increasingly at risk of extinction.
Over the nine-year period of the anti-union legislation, the Employment Contracts Act, union membership plummeted from around 45% to 17%. of the workforce.
There is always a temptation to grizzle about how bad it was under the ECA (and it was bad!). Under the ECA we lost awards, union rights, conditions, bargaining power, jobs through restructuring, penal and overtime rates, and job security through casualisation.
We lost health and safety standards, and workers' comp rights. Many workers lost pride and dignity.
Most of all we lost the density of union membership we need to be strong voice for workers. The movement was in crisis.
Did the crisis vanish with the advent of a centre-left Government? No.
The union movement did not transform simply because we have a sympathetic Government.
The change of Government does not turn back the clock. What the Labour-Alliance coalition has done is put in place the framework for the movement to rebuild itself.
By October last year, the ECA was consigned to the dustbin, replaced with the Employment Relations Act.
The ERA is not a radical piece of legislation by international standards. It does not return compulsory unionism, awards, arbitration or closed shops.
It does support the negotiation of collective workplace agreements between workers in their unions and their employers. It provides some real opportunities to organise around.
The issue for unions now is not ridding ourselves of anti-worker law and replacing it with fair legislation.
That is done and we are still face significant threats.
The real issue for union leaders in New Zealand is to understand what enabled unionism in New Zealand to survive the attack and to build on those features. If we lose them and revert to our old ways we really have gone backwards and arguably do not deserve to survive.
This is not a claim of support for the ECA as some sort of virtuous cleansing process or for its return. The goals of the ECA - to remove unions altogether along with their friend the Labour Party, to ensure the transfer of wealth from labour to capital and to cement in individualism were very close to being realised.
Working people and their families suffered as a result of the ECA and the other components of the new right program. We do not want to go back to that.
Some Lessons We Have Learnt
While there is no proper empirical research there do seem to be some features that are common to those unions that not just managed to survive but got stronger in the ECA period. These are not universal and are present to a greater or lesser extent depending on a number of factors.
Firstly, there is a clarity of focus in those unions. They know where they are and where they want to be. This focus is clearly accepted throughout the union and is strongly supported. This clarity often includes a removal of the bullshit factor - those shibboleths of unionism that have little real value to the continued existence of the union.
Secondly, they are assertive. Not afraid to take on the battle and far more aware of the tools of war. There is strength of purpose and unity. The prospect of a loss under the ECA certainly had a clarifying chill as often it was quickly accompanied by de-unionisation but rather than make those unions conservative in their struggles, it just made them wiser.
Thirdly, those unions became more flexible, more quick footed and more strategic in their thinking. If it was not going to work then stop and move onto another target. To do this successfully requires troops who are solidly behind the union and understand what is happening and why. It also requires the leadership to be more creative, long term in their thinking, ready to take the risk when the time was right and knowing when the time to change had come.
Fourthly, the linkages between members and their unions became much stronger. Or put another way members became more responsible for their union and their bargaining outcomes. Ownership of the union developed making the unions as a third party employer strategy, more problematic.
Lastly, there is a view that no one owes us a living. Put another way, there is a view that while the future belongs to them, they have to create it. The Government will not give it and certainly employers are reluctant. Allied with this is a certain confidence in the union - it has survived, we got it right (or not terribly wrong) and we can go on from there.
There is also another lesson that the movement as a whole has learnt.
That is, we can never afford to again be so dependent on the law, for our existence and our work. We have learnt that there are just too many risks in that. This lesson has strongly guided our view of what should replace the ECA.
Role of the law
There were extensive debates inside the movement about what should replace the ECA. However we did settle on a concluded view.
We wanted a framework that promoted collective bargaining through unions along with some basic organising rights.
This is essentially a very modest demand especially in most civilised countries. It is based on a view of the political realities within New Zealand and our experiences.
Of course if this is all we wanted (and got) then it represents a real challenge to unions. It says that unions cannot take a breather, just because the Government has changed. The underlying instabilities and threats still exist. Unless we keep moving forward we will go under just as quickly as we did under the ECA.
But it does represent a real statement of confidence from New Zealand unions. It says that we do have the ability and the capacity to succeed, we do not rely on Government for our existence. It says give us the framework and we will do the rest and we will do it sufficiently well to withstand the next onslaught. The way forward is quite clear - we will take what we have learnt under the ECA and with this knowledge, these skills and that capacity we will prosper in the new environment.
This, to me, is a powerful statement from the New Zealand trade union movement. No wonder employers think we are winning.
Our Threats
Having said all that, we do face some serious threats and these are matters we need to get to grips with urgently. There are real challenges for union leaderships.
We are chronically under resourced. Our capacity to take advantage of the new environment is severely limited. This is a real challenge to the movement and has led directly to the creation of our Organising Centre, focussed on reunionisation.
We have to get to grips with the new unions that are allowed under the Employment Relations Act. Do we welcome them and engage with them or do we hold them out?
As always, we face demarcations. 81% of our workforce is non union and we face demarcation disputes!
The new areas of the economy are growing, but they are difficult to organise.
We face the threat of too many organising opportunities. How do unions deal with the debate on whether to chuck everything at it now or taking a more measured approach and run the risk of opportunities disappearing. Do we work to maximise membership where we are or do we agressively chase new sites? Where does the balance lie and what drives that decision?
We have to work out the nature and the content of our relationship with government. We have a sympathetic Government with many close ties to the movement - but it is still a Government. How do we engage and about what?
Utilising Our Experiences to Make a Stronger Movement
There is every indication that unions and the movement at large, are utilising those experiences to rebuild the movement.
Through the CTU, unions are coming together around common programs and supporting each other in those programs. Some that come to mind include a project re-unionise construction and a corporate campaign to turn around Carter Holt Harvey's poor record in industrial relations.
In the latter two projects we have been greatly assisted by Australian unions.
We have our Organising Centre up and running with a full education program and now the centre is working directly with unions on their unionisation programs.
The challenge is immense - to reunionise New Zealand. But it can work. The trick is to retain those good features in our task of rebuilding the movement, so that we are strong and prepared for a time without a sympathetic Government.
|
"It is obvious that corporate democracy is not democratic at all because there is no opposition and no alternative strategies. At Friday's meeting BHP shareholders were in the position of the citizens of the People's Republic of China: protest all you like but when it comes to the elections there's only one mob to vote for and they've got one strategy."
(Alan Kohler, Australian Financial Review:'Corporate democracy runs riot',
19/5/01).
That mainstream media commentators from the so-called capitalist press focussed on the irony surrounding the absence of any real democracy in the major institutions of the 'free world' is a sign of the times.
In the corporate world decisions are made at the top of high rise office blocks that tower over the streets dwarfing all below. It is a dangerously distorted perspective, inflating the egos of company directors who have the power to decide whether whole communities are shut down and families torn apart. After all people appear as mere dots on the pavement. And humanity does not figure on a corporate balance sheet.
Unionists are only too aware of how dictatorial big business can be. They are the first to feel the full impact of corporate tyranny. Under globalisation social costs are rarely factored into the equation.
"Transnationals are not democratic," said MUA National Secretary Paddy Crumlin. "They are very ruthless in their corporate determination. They've got absolutely no values other than the so-called shareholder values. Their campaigns are constructed in the board rooms of London and New York and are basically about eliminating any opposition. This is what I call economic fascism. It is increasingly unacceptable to the world community."
"When a company shuts down they just give workers notice and throw them out onto the street," said CFMEU National Secretary John Maitland. "We've seen families crack under the stress. It's led to marriage breakups and attempted suicides. Mining companies have left a leave a trial of misery in their wake."
Company directors and CEOs unlike union representatives or politicians are not elected. But they are all too often left to dictate our lives and our communities. Indeed their power would be absolute but for unions.
World financial markets are now a greater danger to world stability than nuclear weapons, according to co-author of The Global Trap Dr Hans Peter Martin.
"The most bizarre aspect of democracy in the corporate state is the vote itself," wrote commentator David Uren (The Weekend Australian, 'Democracy tainted by corporate realities', 19/5/01). "The rich people get many more votes than the poor."
So why should democracy stop at the factory gate or the boardroom door when so many transnationals now have more clout than nation states? Why is 'Industrial democracy' once a buzz word no longer in vogue? And how come corporate governance is only now being put under the media spotlight?
A case in point in BHP Billiton, the biggest corporate merger in Australian history.
The $57 billion mega mining company is bigger than many of the countries it mines - like Mozambique. And the public controversy surrounding the recent merger vote in Melbourne on May 18 aroused as much comment and speculation as would a coup in Colombia, another third world country where Billiton, now BHP is actively engaged.
The merger itself was a coup of sorts. It was not the decision to go with Billiton that provoked public angst. It was the way The Big Australian went about it. When the decision was made, shareholders had no choice but to vote in favour. There was no real alternative.
On May 10 six unions covering BHP workers - the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, the Australian Workers' Union, The Communications Electoral and Plumbing Union of Australia, the Construction Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Maritime Union of Australia - held a media conference in Sydney announcing their opposition to the merger.
The union justified their involvement in the vote no campaign as major stakeholders in the company.
"Workers built the company and are entitled to know that any merger decisions are soundly based, in our interests and that of the nation as a whole, the statement read. What's more many workers are also shareholders.
"This merger is a dud deal," said CFMEU mining and energy division general president Tony Maher. "Poor investment decision are inevitably paid for by the workforce as much as by the shareholders, through cuts to jobs and costs."
Unionists questioned why BHP was paying such a high price for the merger with Billiton, why there was no independent report on the proposed merger, why a pay hike for executives was part and parcel of the deal, while workers had no assurance that there would be no more downsizing after it went through, why BHP assets had been so undervalued and why BHP CEO Anderson was vacating his position to Billiton CEO Brian Gilbertson a year before his contract was up.
The labour movement was not alone in its criticism.
Shadow treasurer Simon Crean said the release of a confidential memo showing Gilbertson taking control of core BHP petroleum and mineral division only fuelled talk of the merger being a reverse takeover. The ALP believed the BHP Billiton deal had far more serious national interest implications than the $10 billion Shell bid for Woodside blocked by Treasurer Peter Costello. But PM John Howard described the merger as a "marvellous" thing.
BHP's second biggest holder Colonial first state investment managers complained BHP managers had not been hard nosed enough in negotiations with Billiton. Auzeq, which compiles independent research for Australian institutional investors argued the deal would shift $4.6 billion worth of value straight out of BHP and into the hands of Billiton. The split should have been 65:35, not 42-58. Corporate Governance International, a major proxy voting advisory service, recommended that its clients oppose the merger. CGI said BHPs shareholders faced a "potential conflict of interest" by approving a deal which delivers a $143 million share windfall to Billiton's senior executives without getting access to additional key financial information on Billiton.
Billiton CEO and Chairman Brian Gilbertson alone gets $17.75 million. The London Association of British Insurers claimed payment to directors should only be made if there is a clear change of control. The executive pay hike was bundled into the deal so could it not be rejected without voting down the merger.
And BHP CEO Paul Anderson is poised to get a $3.2 million golden handshake on his departure next year, topped off with $13.6 million worth of free shares and options to buy more at bargain prices.
Yet shareholders were faced with the scenario of accepting the merger terms as dictated by management - or else. BHP executives threatened to resign if the deal did not get up. And shareholders were further intimidated by the threat of a $100 million liquidators fee if either side failed to endorse the merger.
Little wonder many compared their predicament as having a gun at the head.
As the controversy spilled over into the media, BHP took out full page advertisements in all major papers to win over retail investors.
"A corporation is a one party state, run by management and a board," columnist David Uren wrote in the Weekend Australian (Democracy tainted by corporate realities, 19/5/01). "The ruling party has unfettered access to the treasury to conduct whatever telephone marketing and media advertising campaigns are deemed necessary to win a vote. Any opposition would have to dip into its own pockets. This is democracy Singapore style..."
Two days before the the extraordinary general meeting the majority of shareholders had reluctantly rubber stamped the deal. The big backers had already caste their vote by proxy. 1,500 of BHP's 267,000 shareholders attended the meeting, but BHP executives already knew the result before it began.
In the strategy meeting held in ACTU rooms the evening before the formal vote union representatives acknowledged the merger was a done deal. They were counting only on a 10 per cent vote against and the opportunity to put the hard questions to BHP executives. They did more.
The no vote hit a record 11 per cent (98.18 million shares) against. This was almost double the previous BHP record set in 1984.
Workers from as far as central Queensland, Port Pirie, Pilbara and Port Kembla rallied outside the BHP shareholder meeting in Melbourne on the morning.
The protest swelled to 5,000 according to some media estimates, as construction workers on Melbourne CBD sites downed tools and marched to the Melbourne Concert Hall, waving placards such as "executive greed strangling community need".
ACTU secretary Greg Combet speaking on behalf of six affiliates and 28,000 BHP workforce said employees had the right to ask questions. "Managers in London are not going to have any interest in workers and families in communities in Port Kembla or Pilbara," he said. "We've got to stand shoulder to shoulder and keep a united voice."
"The Big Australian is to become the Big Pom," said AMWU chief Doug Cameron. "It's a bad deal.
"It's sending a message out to the world that Australia is just a big quarry, a big farm," Cameron said in reference to BHP Billiton plans to hive off the last of its steel manufacturing division.
AWU Secretary Bill Shorten called for an inquiry into the merger in place of the politically inspired inquiry into the building industry. "What we've got is a little company taking over a big company. It's stupid," he said.
MUA Deputy National Secretary Mick O'Leary, representing the 232 BHP Transport stevedoring workers and 212 seafarers on 12 BHP ships said the merger was a threat to jobs. "We won't cop job insecurity," he said.
Inside the meeting BHP workers and union officials were among shareholders and proxy voters who relentlessly put the hard questions to BHP executives, delaying the vote by three hours.
While BHP executive and chairperson Don Argus described the merger as "fair and in the best interests to share holders" and Paul Anderson BHP CEO said it was "driven by a desire to increase the value of (shareholders) investments" by creating a 'mega company', worker shareholders saw otherwise.
"After BHP made its big mistakes in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Australian workforce copped it in the neck," said Port Kembla worker and shareholder Les Watson, MUA, referring to the ill-fated $3.2 billion buy out for us based Magma Copper in 1996. Three years later the entire investment was written off as a loss.
"More than 30 per cent of the workforce became retrenched, with others forced to work 12 hour shifts," he said. "And the fundamental reason was that BHP management needed to squeeze more out of us to make up for their lousy commercial decisions."
In a passionate address to shareholders Kim Winterbourne, MUA stevedoring worker Westernport described the merger as a national tragedy.
"BHP Ltd is one of Australia's largest companies," he said. "It's a company in which most Australians either hold shares directly, or indirectly via their superannuation savings. This deal is a reverse takeover and will go down in history as one of the shonkiest deals that was ever foisted on BHP shareholders and the Australian public. It is appalling that BHP assets have been undervalued relative to those of Billiton."
"Much of the Billiton assets have been accrued in the last couple of years on a spending spree that has saddled the company with debt. A lot of assets are cast offs from Rio Tinto and bhp itself. For example the Colombian coal assets were sold by Rio Tinto only last year. Rio Tinto, if not Billiton was able to recognise that coal mining prospect in a country torn apart by a civil war over drugs is not really a good prospect at all..."
"BHP management has not bothered to consult this workforce about the merger any more than it has genuinely consulted its shareholders. We have been represented with a fait accompli - a done deal. Or should I say a dud deal".
John Maitland, National Secretary of the CFMEU and President International Chemical Energy Mining and General Workers' Union covering 20 million workers from 110 countries stressed the unions weren't against all mergers. It was the way they had gone about this one.
"I think the point is that BHP has failed to convince anyone that this is a good deal," he said. "BHP has essentially squandered the good will of workers by forcing individual contracts in WA, squandered the goodwill of the community by closing down steel operations and now it has squandered the goodwill of shareholders.
"It's all about how you deal with the major challenges of human rights and workers rights," he told the meeting. "These are just as important as money issues. They are the issues that will bring long term return on investments. Are you going to give Australian workers freedom of association? Are you going to avoid job losses in Australian communities?"
Maitland then read a letter of solidarity from South African National Union of Mineworkers General Secretary Gwede Mantashe: "Billiton and its predecessors were part of the apartheid regime against whom we had to struggle for many years. We will have to strengthen our existing cooperation to ensure that the company respects the human rights of its workforce wherever they operate. I note with concern that BHP has been seeking to deny its workers their basic rights in Pilbara in Western Australia. We view the denial of bargaining rights as a major issue for us and pledge to join you in holding the company to account for its labour practices on the international stage."
Unionists were not the only shareholders speaking against the terms of the merger, with only one speaker in favour during the three hour debate leading up to the vote.
But the chair declared a majority show of hands in favour when the motions were put at 1pm. By evening BHP announced the overall vote had passed and that the share price had peaked at $23.
The Big Australian became the bit Australian. The mega merger became a reality.
But the union movement had meanwhile organised a merger of its own.
Long before shareholders took their vote, the ACTU was quietly working behind the scenes getting old union rivals to bury the hatchet and speak as one.
A national summit of 12 unions from Australia and New Zealand took in Wollongong on April 20 as a first step towards forming a single bargaining unit to ensure the BHP merger did not further undermine hard won conditions, job security and collective union rights.
The CFMEU took it a step further with National Secretary John Maitland enlisting the commitment of the South African union covering Billiton employees, which he read out at the shareholders meeting.
"Billiton and its predecessors were part of the apartheid regime against whom we had to struggle for many years," wrote South African National Union of Mineworkers General Secretary Gwede Mantashe. "We will have to strengthen our existing cooperation to ensure that the company respects the human rights of its workforce wherever they operate. I note with concern that BHP has been seeking to deny its workers their basic rights in Pilbara in Western Australia. We view the denial of bargaining rights as a major issue for us and pledge to join you in holding the company to account for its labour practices on the international stage."
The Wollongong meeting condemned the company's hardline industrial relations strategy as out of touch with normal Australian values and community standards.
"BHP must accept the fundamental right and choice of employees to join, organise and be represent by their unions through collective bargaining, " said ACTU President Sharan Burrow. "We will extend our mutual co-operation across our workplaces and internationally," she said.
The union lobby campaign against the merger was a first step.
BHP introduced individual contracts in 1999 in the Pilbara, sold off is steel division, closed its Newcastle mills disputes in Queensland with coal miners and is now set to hive off its Wollongong steel production.
And things are set to get worse.
Billiton boss Brian Gilbertson is reported to be rushing to Australia to take over management of core assets minerals and petroleum. His big aim? To reduce wages to Rio Tinto levels, according to this week's media reports. There will be review of all assets and some will be sold. This, too, will be up to Gilbertson.
Meanwhile Channel 9 Sunday program (May 20) televised BHP CEO Paul Anderson announcing BHP interest in Woodside Petroleum.
BHP already controls half of Bass Strait operations and one in six of northwest shelf.
A new mining colossus BHP Billiton now straddles the four continents of Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas.
To survive, BHP Billiton workers of the world must do likewise.
______________________________________________
Lest We Forget
It is not the first time BHP has flirted with fascism. In November 1938 Japanese bombs were already blooding China. Port Kembla wharfies were a far sighted bunch. Knowing that BHP pig iron was destined for the Mitsui war machine and Japan's 'downward thrust', through South East Asia to Australian shores, they took a stand. They struck a boycott on the BHP shipments.
Rupert Lockwood brings the dispute to life in his book War on the Waterfront: Menzies, Japan and the Pig Iron Dispute. It is the story of how 180 men in sweaty work singlets and hob nailed boots went hungry rather than load shipments of munitions metal to fuel the Japanese war machine.
Mitsui was a centrepiece of the Japanese war effort. But weapons are not possible without the many tonnes of raw materials and BHP was only too happy to oblige with around 300,000 tonnes. It was at a time when Australian industry was seriously short of pig iron for its own foundries, construction and rearmament program. But Japan paid more.
For BHP, profits came before patriotism. Menzies backed the company all the way. His support for Japan and BHP in the lead up to WWII earned him the name Pig Iron Bob. The rest is history.
So too BHP's role in WWI. The company was so wound up with the German war machine, the Australian army raided its offices in 1914 to end its traffic with enemy agencies. While the Allies were crying out for led, zinc and copper, Australian output was at Germany's disposal. A representative of Kaiser Wilhelm von Hohenzollern was on the BHP Board of Directors. Prussian Hugo Karl Emil Von Buecke was a director, both of BHP (1892-1916) and the Adelaide Steamship Co. BHP was, in Lockwood's words a 'nest of spies'.
by Neale Towart
Ben Chifley |
With Costello presenting a budget comprised of re-announced spending promises (all well into a safe future so they can be safely discarded as non-core promises), a wonderfully generous $300 to the wealthy retired for the ongoing odorous GST, and totally without ideas for what the future course of the country will be, it a look at the budget debate of 1982, when Howard tried the same approach, is revealing.
As the whole rationale for the Coalition is to be anti Labor, rather than pro-anything, the bankruptcy of ideas is consistent in the Liberal Party. The Chifley example demonstrates an ongoing commitment to equality, people and industry, while the Whitlam vision of 1972 shows a party concerned with people, and a willingness to trust peoples feelings of equality, social justice and participation.
Contrast this with the preparation of the Fraser-Howard budget in 1982, as reported by Paul Kelly in The Hawke Ascendancy: 1975-1983. There is a striking familiarity in the advice Tony Eggleton, director of the Libs, gave to Malcolm Fraser that the "Government must use the budget as a means of restoring its lost political credibility." Fraser chose to do this by spending, despite a track record of lowering the deficit every year until then (Costello has been bragging about the surplus he has delivered each year, which is looking pretty shaky now). "Howard's authority (he had been trying to minmise any deficit blow out) was flouted each day, until relations between himself and Fraser reached their nadir."
With a big spending budget designed a vote winner, the election didn't happen until the next March (largely because of the unforeseen fallout from the Costigan Royal Commission), by which time the face of the ALP had changed and the government's political fortunes had waned. David Barnett diagnosed the fatal flaws for Fraser (after the loss). "The answer, I believe, was a loss of faith in basic principles, and with that loss of faith a loss of direction. The Government delivered tax cuts, a soft budget....The Prime Minister and the Government went into the election campaign without a philosophical direction."
A eerie similarity faces us. HIH has collapsed and a Royal Commission looms. The Howard-Costello face of financial rectitude is being tossed aside in the panic to shore up the Government. Tony Abbott must be aware that the last building industry royal commission was Greiner's witch hunt run by his own property investor, Gyles, that showed that the developers were the problem, not the unions.
If we look at past ALP approaches, we can see that its "vision thing', despite its detractors, has been shaping the society and even when the wet blanket of conservative rule has been thrown over us for long periods.
The blanket can be thrown off, as Beazley points out by his approach of making a fairer Australia by simply spending the money where it is needed, rather than on conservative looking, older middle class voters who have been tempted away from the safety of the Libs by the decay of their living standards.
Whitlam in 1972 answered the critics who claimed that "a Labor victory in November...would not make much difference. hose who hold that view reach it by a variety of roads. Some fear that the Australian people are basically too conservative to accept radical change, or any real change at all."
Whitlam went on to say "I reject these views and the conclusion drawn from them - the conclusion that a Labor Government would not make much difference. True it is, the Australian people are predominantly middle class in outlook even perhaps more than income. But there is no inherent reason why such a people should be immovably conservative. The truth is that we do not really know what the Australian people are capable of."
This is the message the ALP should hammering. Whitlam had many flaws but he was at least willing to trust people would appreciate ideas. The promoters of the "Knowledge Nation" should remember this.
On the view that Labor in power would not make any difference, Whitlam promoted moves on 3 themes -
� the promotion of equality
� public participation in decision making
� the liberation of the talents, the uplifting of horizons of the Australian people.
If you like, the relevance and application in contemporary Australia of equality, fraternity and liberty.
With Costello and Howard increasing the subsidisation of private schools, diverting funding to well provided for sectors and making it even harder for those disadvantaged by unemployment, disability and ill health, these themes are crucial for the creation of a fairer and dynamic society.
Ben Chifley made the same point in summing up his 1948-49 budget. Equality must be the key. "I believe that the best incentive that can be given to workers is a sense of security - security of employment and security against sickness, unemployment and the disabilities of old age." Howard and co have continued to undermine those who depend on pensions in favour of wealthy retirees. Equality is out the window.
Industry was in focus too, with Chifley pointing out that "the industrialist, again, can forward his project with most confidence if he knows that demand will be sustained." The Libs have no industry policy, with industrialists now disappearing overseas or going "belly up." Demand management are dirty words these days.
Chifley went on to say "security, in the largest sense, has all along been the keynote of the government's financial and economic programme. We have aimed to reduce taxation and have done so.... We have aimed to lift standards of social benefit and have done so."
In his last political speech, given to the 1951 NSW ALP Annual Conference, Chifley articulated the strength required of the ALP if they were to have any claim to leadership and support from the Australian people. "I could not be called a young radical but if I think a thing is worth fighting for, no matter what the penalty is, I will fight for the right, and truth and justice will prevail."
Whitlam in 1972 was about articulating a new approach, rather than defending an extending a government as Chifley was too was brave enough to address and exceed expectations. The Costello-Howard-Abbott version of "mutual obligation" is where the disadvantaged are dragooned into unpaid work, whilst the rich get tax subsidies and cheap labour. Whitlam was willing to believe in people and act on a governments obligations to people "because so much depends on the degree to which people themselves can define their own future, once they are freed from the straightjacket of accustomed attitudes. we are indeed living in a time of rising expectations. It might be more prudent politically to downgrade the prospects of change as a kind of political re-insurance, but I do believe the people should have the highest expectations from their government....
The expectations of the people, not the reservations of the politicians, will provide the thrust and direction for the next Labor Government."
****************
Quotes from: Labor n Power: What is the difference? by Gough Whitlam and Bruce Grant (from the 1972 Fabian winter lecture series)
The Hawke Ascendancy: a definitive account of its origins and climax 1975-1983 by Paul Kelly (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1984)
Things Worth Fighting For: speeches by Joseph Benedict Chifley selected and arranged by A W Stargardt. Melbourne: Australian Labor Party, 1952.
|
******************
Okay, hands up everyone who thought the intersection between political consciousness and popular music was demolished the moment Madonna seductively claimed she was a material girl, and a brigade of hair dryer glam rock groups took their first ride in a Ferrari? Let's face it, the 80's weren't a particularly good time to have a social conscious full stop. Actually, many music fans argue that the 90's were no better, and on the surface they're right. Year after year, eardrums were assaulted with manufactured pop groups whose sole aim in life was to deliver healthy profits to their corporate masters. Schmoozing publicists, clever advertising and an amazing lack of talent replaced integrity and a lust for success.
Even genre's such as Hip-Hop, traditionally as anti-establishment as you can get, became fodder for coke sniffing marketing executives who would endlessly search for the most violent misogynistic acts they could find. "Hey we may be pimping the culture, but kids in middle class neighbourhoods eat it up, social decay and ghetto violence is marketing gold man!"
I'll admit it; the situation today looks grim. Must we now ask if popular music has become nothing more than a venture capitalist's wet dream?
Well, I'm going to stick my neck out on this one with a resounding no! It may not be in vogue, but the voices for positive social and economic change still populate the musical landscape in many forms. Before rolling out the evidence, let's take a trip down memory lane and revisit the tradition that the 80's so rudely interrupted.
Let's go back to the 1960s. A tumultuous decade, the forces of social change were on the march from every side. The Reverend Martin Luther King was busy redefining the social fabric of a superpower, women's liberation was in full swing throughout the western world and thousands of ordinary people were voicing their opposition to the savagery of war and the nuclear threat. Artists such as Bob Dylan were producing the music that became a rallying point for a generation and made people feel that they could actually change the world. Ironically, it was actually an album released at the beginning of the next decade, which perhaps best symbolises this period of change.
The year, 1971, the artist Marvin Gaye, the album What's Going On. One of the greatest slices of recorded music ever, What's Going On was a radical shift for the Motown machine which had previously relied on slick suits and quick fix pop tracks. Label head Berry Gordy originally refused to release the album; thank god Marvin stood his ground. Inner city decay, the environment and a heartfelt plea for the collective ideal, just some of the topics covered by an album stunning in its breadth and vision. Even now, What's Going On remains relevant, a clarion call for social justice this is required listening for anyone with half a brain.
While Marvin was busy creating history, the social justice bug infiltrated a range of musical genres across the globe. The magnificent Black Sabbath recorded an anti-war ode with War Pigs, and a few short years later the Sex Pistols proved once and for all their that the monarchy was redundant, and learning to play the guitar wasn't necessary for chart success. It seemed like everyone was at it. From George Clinton's P-funk ensemble to Australia's own Saints, artists had something to say.
So what caused the decline in the 1980's? Maybe Reagan and Thatcher's conservative antics did the trick? Could everyone have stayed at home and watched a legion of comedians take the piss out of this unfortunate duo? Things began to change however when that magical and mysterious cosmic hand that guides free markets everywhere decided to hit spanking mode and deep six the world's sharemarkets. Suddenly people remembered that despite the glitz and glamour of MTV, poverty and social unrest remained rampant. Public Enemy scared the shit of middle America with It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back and in the early 90s four likely lads decided to Rage Against The Machine. Political consciousness was back with a vengeance. Since then, things have gone from good to even better with social and political messages emanating from all facets of the musical rainbow. If you dig under the piles of Bardot singles at your local HMV you'll find the results of a resurgent current in political consciousness.
Interested in indigenous issues? Check out Roots from Brazilian noisemiesters Sepultura. Animal rights and corporate greed: Canadian activists Propaghandi should do the trick. Closer to home, The Whitlams new album Love This City provides insightful social comment on everything from gambling to East Timor. And these examples are just the very tip of the iceberg. As issues such as globalisation continue to galvanise diverse communities, the music that moves our hearts and minds will always play an important role in the struggle. I'll leave the last words to one of our own up and coming artists, Matty B, a talented rapper from Perth, WA.
"I speak the truth without hesitation or regret/The wheels of capitalism oiled with the common man's sweat blood and tears/He pays his rent and has a feed and if he's lucky he'll get a couple of beers/Never seems to get ahead despite working his guts out for years/ It's outrageous, yeah it's outrageous.
by The Chser
The Chaser |
HIH directors revealed yesterday that they had insured themselves with someone else when they realised their own insurance business was useless. The claim will ensure that the directors of the company can continue to be handsomely rewarded for their negligent management of HIH. It will also ensure that HIH can continue to run its core business of throwing lavish staff parties.
"We're not completely stupid," said one director from an unidentified island in the Pacific. "We've been in the insurance game long enough to know that if anyone needed insurance we did."
The director said the thousands of Australian families and companies who have been affected by the collapse only have themselves to blame, after they refused to buy Insurer Insurance which would have protected them against insurance loss.
Former directors of HIH have also rushed to defend their decision not to appoint a voluntary administrator.
"We never thought anyone would be stupid enough to volunteer to manage this company," said former CEO Ray Williams. "I mean, I never managed it and I was being paid a shit load."
The HIH collapse will be the subject of an inquiry by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which indirectly helped cause the disaster. Its chairman David Knott denies a conflict of interest.
Another inquiry will be conducted by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, which also helped cause the disaster. Its director David Knott again denies a conflict of interest and has even been kind enough to offer his time to head up a Royal Commission into the affair.
The insurance company's auditors, Arthur Andersen, insist that conflict of interest has never had a place in the HIH boardroom, which the auditors regularly visit as HIH directors and where they happily signed off on the health of the company's finances.
Prime Minister John Howard was initially reluctant to offer Federal Government assistance to HIH because, despite its impressive levels of financial mismanagement, the Prime Minister's brother Stan Howard was not on the HIH board. Mr Howard eventually agreed however to offer a substantial relief package to HIH customers, as his own personal insurance against any further seat losses in the upcoming election.
Mark Latham |
************
Two years ago, in one of the reception halls of Parliament House, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, gave a speech which I believe typifies what has gone wrong with the moral foundations of government. Addressing a youth leadership forum, he talked of his belief in "our shared humanity". Yet in defining the things which glue society together - the values and obligations held in common between people - he said that these must come from a higher existence, Almighty God. I was left wondering: how can we have a shared humanity, but not a shared morality, in the relationship between people?
By its nature, morality is a learned practice. It is a social practice, formed in the experience and bonds between people. It is much more than a question of faith, handed down to people in the form of religious doctrine. A shared morality cannot be directed, coerced or manufactured. It is not something to be dispensed from a higher existence; it is in the existence between people.
Anderson, of course, is not alone in this misunderstanding of morality. The Federal Parliament is full of those who want to dispense morality on behalf of society. It is full of authoritarian Christians and statists who, despite political differences, share a common methodology in public life. They want government to make the moral rules of society, rather than devolving this process to the informal rules of civil society. They are the great centralisers of our time. Their unity ticket can be seen on issues as diverse as the Federal Parliament's 1996 euthanasia debate and the making of the 1999 constitutional preamble. They believe that public morality comes more from the citizen-to-state relationship that the relationship between people. The lack the language and purpose of social capital and social relationships. This approach, however, is out of step with the public mood. It is an inappropriate response to the demands of our post-traditional society.
We live in an era of moral confusion. On each of the major public issues now facing society - globalisation, economic restructuring, the loss of social connectedness, family breakdown, street crime and youth alienation - people are looking for a new understanding of their relationship and obligations to each other. This is the moral dilemma of our time: if traditional institutions and social connections are in decline, what form of moral obligation might take their place?
Unhappily, these answers cannot be found in the old ideologies of Left and Right. Social democrats hope to use state power as a way of defining the rules and functions of society. Social conservatives hope to impose their own morality - in practice, the church's morality - on the rest of society. Neither Left nor Right recognises that people need to participate in making their own morals rules. Each positions the public as clients to the power of state intervention. The rule making of civil society is replaced by the law making of government.
Too much state power means too much reliance of government. The old ideologies tend to treat people as rule followers, rather than rule makers. If this influence becomes dominant, people can easily fall out of the habit of determining their obligations to, and trust in, each other. This is when social norms and cohesiveness start to break down. This appears to be the unhappy state f Western society at the beginning of the 21st century. The relationship between states, markets and society has become imbalanced.
While global economic markets have been able to generate huge amounts of wealth and technological progress, societies everywhere appear to be fragmenting. Law-and-order concerns, gated housing estates and the loss of public spaces point to a breakdown in social cohesiveness. While government has triumphed over the last century - with improvements to the education, transportation, housing and health care of its population - society has lost much of its civility and morality. From the loss of public faith in democratic governance to the rancour of what remains as public discourse, civic life is in retreat.
These changes have brought to society a new paradox. While in recent decades people have come to enjoy unprecedented freedoms - liberty and opportunity of globalised markets and communications - they have also experienced a decline in the social connectedness upon which these freedoms inevitably rely. The extend of social change has magnified the level of social stress and anxiety. In the words of the US sociologist, Alan Wolfe:
Modern people need to care about the fates of strangers, yet do not even know how to treat their loved ones. Moral rules seem to evaporate the more they are needed. The paradox of modernity is that the more people depend on one another owing to an ever-widening circle of obligations, the fewer are agreed-upon guidelines for organising moral rules that can account for those obligations.
A terrible irony now confounds our polity. At a time when people need to be closer to each other, so as to cope with the challenges of globalisation and the Information Age, social trust and morality appear to be in retreat. The demands of modern citizenship require an upsizing of society. Civil society needs to rediscover the habits of rule making. It needs to find a way of reconciling individual freedoms with social obligations. This does not mean winding back new technologies. Nor does it mean engaging in old ideological struggles. Answers are not likely to be found either in the state interventions of the Left, in the social conservatism of the Right or, for that matter, in free-market economics.
Rather, a different set of issues present themselves. In an age of mass information and global markets, what type of social governance is best suited to rebuilding social trust and morality? What role might the reform of public policy plan in this process? And, finally, what form of citizenship is now needed to enhance the cohesiveness of society? I offer two answers, both drawn from the ethos of the enabling state.
A Civic Conversation
The first step is to use politics as a way of strengthening the civic voice and moral dialogue in society. More than ever, during this period of moral confusion and transition, the rulemaking functions of civil society are critical. As Wolfe puts it:
Rather than implying a longing for a moral order of the past, civil society ought instead to serve as a metaphor for all those episodes and encounters that [provide] the foundation for thinking through, in connection with others, the rules by which [we] will be governed. Families, communities, friendship networks, voluntary organisations, and social movements are to be valued not because they create havens in an otherwise heartless world, but because it can only be within the intimate realm, surrounded by those we know and for whom we care, that we learn the art of understanding the moral positions of others.
This shared understanding is an essential part of modern citizenship. It helps people to cross social and geographic boundaries in their relations with each other. Just as the institutions of government need to change, so too do the processes of politics. Public policy needs to emerge from what amounts to a civic conversation: political leaders engaging the public in a dialogue about moral values. This is an important way of helping people copy with the bewildering pace of social change.
Governments need to do more than just stand and deliver their views to a waiting public. They need to position civil society as an agent of moral dialogue, encouraging people to reassess and redefine their obligations to each other. They need to open up the public issues and dialogue through which people can rediscover the habits of rule making. This reflects what is known as a communitarian approach to politics. It attempts to disperse a political power and thereby correct the shortcomings of modern democracy.
As with most parts of the state, political decision making has become highly centralised. Democracy was founded on the idea that everyone should have a say in the decisions of government impacting on their lives. But the sheer size of the modern state has forced government to replace direct democracy with representations from sectional interest groups. Community consultation has thinned out to the interaction between government and these national peak bodies. This has led to widespread public dissatisfaction with the concentration of political power. Communitarian politics aims to broaden the span 0of public consultation. It tries to create the time and space required for civic engagement. It advocates an extensive dialogue about the moral dilemmas facing civil society. These include questions of national identity, community values, family life and personal responsibility. To give just one instance of this approach: the framing of a constitutional preamble in Australia should have been opened up to a process of public dialogue. Given the scale of social change in recent decades, many Australians are rethinking the issue of national identity. They are looking for a clearer sense of what it now means to be an Australian.
These issues can only be sorted out satisfactorily by an exchange of views between Australians themselves. The last thing the nation needed was for its Prime Minister to pre-empt such a debate by writing his own preamble. The Federal Government should have sponsored a national dialogue about the modern meaning of Australian identity. It should have given every Australian a chance to have a say. Every classroom should have been asked to debate the values important to your Australians. Every newspaper should have been asked to invite submissions from its readers. Every local government area should have been asked to conduct public forums and opinion surveys. Every household and library connected to the Internet should have been asked to join the debate online. Only when the people have had their say can the nation have confidence in a new preamble.
During a time of constant change and confusion, governments need to do more than frame laws and make decisions. They need to get a public involved in the great moral questions of our time: how do we answer the new challenges of citizenship, identity and shared morality? Government should protect the freedom of its citizens to engage in such processes, not monopolise the process itself. The aim is not to abolish state power, but to prevent its encroachment upon those matters which are best left to civil society. This is one of the moral foundations of good governance.
Multiple-identity Citizenship
Another essential step is to broaden our understanding of citizenship beyond both the boundaries of the nation state and the reach of single-identity politics. The political system needs to develop a concept of citizenship suited to a post-traditional society. This is what I call multiple-identity citizenship.
Questions of identity are at the heart of a good society because, at the end of the day, they raise the most basic issue of all about society: who are we? Not who am I as an individual, but who are we - together - as a society? This is why the concept of citizenship must be as inclusive as possible. It must be a big tent within which the various identities of modern society can co-exist, rather than compete against each other. This co-existence is essential to the reordering of public morality
Unfortunately for much of human history, citizenship has been a small tent. In pre-capitalist society, identities were framed around the city state and the tribalism of religious groups. With the rise of nationalism in the 18th century, citizenship repositioned itself around the identity of the nation state. In the 19th century, as the Industrial Revolution transformed society, identities were increasingly moulded in the workplace: the awesome struggle between capital and workers, between capitalism and socialism.
History, of course, points to the folly of these narrow identities. The great disasters of mankind - feudal wars, religious wars, empire wars and ultimately, the Cold War - had their origins in the small tents of citizenship. Only I recent time have people had to think about their identities and loyalties in a complex and challenging way. For most of history these were predetermined by the simplicity of single-identity politics. Anything which could not be squeezed into the small tent was aggressively rejected.
Thankfully, globalisation is now challenging these tribal boundares and points of conflict. The increased flow of people, information, culture and economic exchange across the globe is demanding new types of governance and citizenship. It is forcing society to find a bigger tent. As the end of the Cold War showed, national governments are finding it harder to suppress information and political freedoms. As the success of the European Union is showing, nations are having to cooperate internationally to regulate economic activity.
So, too, citizenship is having to move from a single-identity framework to multiple identities. It is no longer possible to simplify identities and keep cultural groups apart. Globalism, multiculturalism, feminism and the struggle for human rights - these are modern inventions which have broadened the span of life's loyalties.
Citizenship now requires consideration of a wide range of geographic allegiances and personal characteristics. These include everything from local, regional, national and international loyalties to career, ethnic, gender and cultural identities. This is driving the complexity of modern politics. It demands a new way of thinking about citizenship and the cohesiveness of society. The many identities of modern citizenship need to find room to breathe and coexist. They need a big tent within which people commonly cross social boundaries and lead a life of many loyalties.
I offer an example of what this might mean in practice. Some time ago a close friend asked me to rank my personal loyalties: as a resident of the Campbelltown community in south-west Sydney; as an Australian national; as someone committed to the ideals of good international citizenship; as a Federal politician; as an Anglo-Aussie male. This is a useful exercise to consider. My conclusion was that I didn't need to give these identities an order of importance. There is no reason why they cannot coexist. They need not fall into cross-purposes and conflict.
Not surprisingly, this kind of citizenship requires a different kind of governance. The task for policy makers is to allow multiple identities to live together easily within individuals as well as between them. Governments need to find ways of lifting people beyond their tribal differences. We need to become a society of boundary-crossers - moving easily across a full range of geographic and personal identities.
Unfortunately I the habits of modern democracy this is not a straightforward task. There is no shortage of political causes and activists wanting to reduce public life to a struggle between single identities. This is a problem across the political spectrum. One the extreme right, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party wants to return Australia to the cultural habits of sameness - narrowing our national identity to the monoculture of White Australia.
On the industrial left, there remains a tribal commitment to economic nationalism - a belief that Australia needs to erect barriers to international economic cooperation. These protectionist policies are often expressed in the name of cultural integrity - a belief in the capacity of governments to identify the unique features of Australian culture and then quarantine them from the many cultures of globalisation. This is one of the burning paradoxes of left-wing politics: its willingness to use the open flow of migration as a tool for multiculturalism in Australia, but not the open flow of entertainment and the arts.
The Left has also promoted the single-identity politics of personal characteristics, such as ethnicity, sexuality and gender. These issues have taken up much of the space and effort it once devoted to class struggle. It has turned itself into a 'rainbow coalition'. It is not that feminists, environmentalists and the ethnic lobby are poorly motivated. The problem lies in the size of their tent.
Feminists identify primarily with the gender politics of affirmative action, while most people - male and female - want a society based on merit and equal opportunity. Greens identify primarily with the environment, while most people want this concern balanced against the need for economic development. The ethnic lobby identifies primarily with non-English-speaking cultures, while most people want all communities to be respected and assisted.
Indeed, few people live their lives through a single identity alone. The diversity of society is in its people, as well as between social groups. Life's circumstances arise from a rich combination of identities, loyalties and socio-economic conditions. None of these factors is homogenous, either within groups or within geographical boundaries.
Seeing like a Citizen
These factors show why state power is a poor way of handling the diversity of civil society. As the Yale academic, James Scott, points out in his wonderful book, Seeing Like a State, the methods of modern government rely on homogeneity and standardisation. He writes:
The utopian, immanent and continually frustrated goal of the modern state is to reduce the chaotic, disorderly, constantly changing social reality beneath it to something more closely resembling the administrative grid of its observations.
In short, the things for which the state cannot plan are the things it cannot handle. This is an enduring flaw in the Left's approach to identity politics.
The state's standard method in this areas has been to divide society into a number of crude categories and groups - gender groups, ethnic groups and so on. It identifies and funds each group on the false assumption of homogenous needs and interests within the group. This is another paradox: how the state tries to manage society's diversity by denying the diversity and multiple identities of its citizens. This can be seen in the folly of reverse discrimination programs.
The difficulty with affirmative action and quotas is the way in which they automatically give one group an advantage at another's expense. This is not because the state's selected beneficiaries are necessarily more deserving or needy, but because they carry a certain characteristic in common (such as gender or race). Other citizens miss out through no fault of their own. No fair-minded person would want society to operate this way. They would want the state to recognise diversity within groups as well as between them. They would want governments to focus on socio-economic need, not a loose assumption that people sharing certain characteristic also share the same type of life - in all its diverse circumstances and identities.
This task, however, is beyond the sophistication of government. The modern citizen has many inter-related identities, yet the modern state can only manage one at a time, and even then only in a crude way. It sees the world in terms of standardisation, not diversity. Thus, from a social justice perspective, single-identity politics reflects a failing of reform technique. It expects from the state outcomes which the methods of government are poorly equipped to deliver. Indeed, the harder the state tries to manage society's diversity, the less successful it is likely to be. This is the ultimate paradox of the Left: when more becomes less.
Whenever governments intervene to nominate and promote a particular identity, other identities are automatically downgraded. This is contrary to the goals of inclusive citizenship. Nobody wants to be left out of the citizenship tent, especially when public resources are involved. This type of exclusion inevitably leads to political resentment and envy. This is what the Americans earlier in the 1990s described as the phenomenon of "angry white males". In Australia it explains the major cause of the Keating Government's defeat in 1996. Labor was punished by "downwards envy" - a feeling in the electorate that we were addressing social issues more through identity politics than socio-economic need.
Exclusion is not a good way of building trust and the habits of boundary-crossing in society. As Richard Sennett writes:
Social inclusion is not a subject reformers think through well. We tend to assume that if we diminish racial discrimination class inequality or sexual prejudice, a more cohesive society will inevitably result. But inclusion has its own logic. Inclusion, be it in a small-scale project or in a nation, requires mutual recognition; people must signal that they are aware of each other in common enterprises.
Multiple-identity citizenship can only succeed through the politics of inclusion. This is what the communitarian leader, Amitai Etzioni, has described as "a community of communities" - a society which recognises diversity while also fostering the bonds of moral obligation. It uses the mutual trust and mutual recognition of civil society as a way of helping identities and interests to coexist. This approach is based on three reform strategies:
� The first is to 'see like a citizen'. Policy makers need to recognise the limits of state power. They need to understand the rich diversity of identities and loyalties in civil society. They need to see the world through the eyes of multiple-identity citizens. It is not sufficient to write human rights into the laws of the state without also considering the means by which they might be respected and practised in the everyday laws of civil society. The most enduring and powerful rights are those embedded in public morality. These foundations lie in the relationship between people, no less than the relationship between citizens and government. Policy makers need to develop the habits of a civic conversation to close the gap between the shared experiences of civil society and the wishes of the state.
� The second strategy is to focus on the right kind of inputs to civil society, instead of trying to control its outcomes. Government needs to help people to reconcile conflicts within their multiple identities. The raw materials for this task are clear: mutual trust and social capital; the power of lifelong learning; the devolution of social policy; plus strong laws against negative discrimination. This is the role of government as an enabler, as a negotiator of differences, rather than as a social engineer.
� Finally, the state needs to maximise the competence of its citizens. Multiple-identity citizenship requires a high level of excellence in public life: a strong devotion to civic engagement, enlightenment and ethical ideals. This points to the need for improved public investments and outcomes in education. In the global village, people are being called on to tryst and understand the position of strangers. This process requires a particular way of looking at the world. It requires they type of enlightenment and self-knowledge associated with education: people understanding themselves, the broader society in which they live, plus the needs and interests of others. In short, a capable society is a learning society.
Conclusion
The moral foundations of governance lie in a new politics which:
� Recognises the role of civil society in creating trust and moral obligation
� Follows the communitarian practice of engaging the public in a civic conversation
� Builds a new citizenship, based on the big tent of multiple identities
� Above all else, trusts its people.
Without trust there can be no shared morality or, for that matter, shared humanity. It is not morality that people hand down from a higher existence. It is authority. This is because they do not trust the people they purport to represent. As one of the bishops covering my electorate wrote to me: 'The basic difficulty [with the idea of social capital] is the assumption that people can be trusted.'
The enabling state is about the politics of trust. This is why it tries to disperse power, rather than concentrate it. It is not afraid to trust civil society. The new politics demands the dispersal of power and the sharing of morality. It is our highest hope, not only for a just society but - in the best and proper meaning of the phrase - a shared humanity.
� This chapter is based on a paper originally delivered at the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics Conference, Old Parliament House, Canberra, 1 October 1999.
Probably the most important gauge of any international sport's health is the crowds it is attracting at top level and Test cricket, on that score, isn't travelling too badly at all.
Winning teams - Australian, India and England, believe it or not - have been attracting full houses while battlers, like New Zealand and Zimbabwe, have struggled for support. Nothing too odd about that.
Sure match-fixing is a problem, a blight on the game that needs to be clean bowled but, thankfully for cricket fans, it has come to light when the sport is in rare good health.
Former British copper Sir Paul Condon sparked another round of doom and gloom with his report, released last week.
There were lurid tales of kidnapping and murder but, to be fair, not a lot of solid fact to back up the allegations - typical of much of the innuendo that swept around the game in recent years.
It was also Condon's idea to scratch the deeds of convicted cheats from official records.
Players the calibre of Hansie Cronje, Salim Malik and Mohammed Azzarudhin played well and courageously for their countries and that shouldn't ever be denied. If anything, it only adds length to their falls from grace.
They were not no-hopers who took the easy way out but talented sportsmen, rich beyond most fans' comprehensions, whose greed got the better of them.
And while their names have been sullied there is no reason to question the achievements of opponents, especially not at test level.
Cheating, in its many forms has always been with us, and probably always will be.
But the depth of cynicism portrayed by elements of the media is unwarranted.
Shane Warne may not be your ideal role model but he was a fine leg spinner and the slurs cast against him and Mark Waugh were largely unwarranted.
There is a mile of difference between between providing pitch, weather and team selection news to bookmakers and throwing matches. Stupidity is not villainy.
Sure, one can lead to the other, but the fact Waugh and Warne went public over Malik's approaches only lent credence to their claims of naivety.
And one good thing that must come out of the whole affair is the lessening in frequency and importance of one-day cricket.
Outside the World Cup, most one-day matches are meaningless. They are a cash-cow the game has milked and should be trimmed back dramatically.
Match-fixing is a problem but the best response has been the style of game adopted by Steve Waugh and his Australians and, to be fair, taken up in more recent times by the Indians and Poms. You don't get better sport anywhere than the recent Australia-India series, so good that the fact matches took five days became a plus rather than a negative.
Mitigating against these developments is the new international test standings format that gives points over series, rather than individual tests. The great thing Waugh has brought to cricket has been a passionate belief that every match is important in its own right.
Even an administrative nod towards the idea of dead rubbers and meaningless games raises prospects of a return to the aimless drudgery just about strangled the game and, just maybe, even worse.
Like most sport, cricket will live or die on the attitudes and performances of its elite players, rather than the failings of flawed individuals.
The Man with the Answers |
Bridging the Digital Divide
The global employment picture remains "deeply flawed" for workers in many parts of the world, according to the ILO World Employment Report 2001. Increasing numbers of workers are unable to find jobs or gain access to the emerging technological resources needed to ensure productivity in an increasingly digitalized global economy. Women are on the wrong side on the digital divide.
Key features of the report:
� as much as one-third of the world's workforce of 3 billion are unemployed or underemployed, 20 million more than before the Asian financial crisis of 1997.
� The global economy will at least have to maintain its current pace of expansion in order to generate the 500 million new jobs needed during the next decade just to accommodate new entrants to the labour market.
� In the OECD countries unemployment has declined sharply since the mid-1990s and long term unemployment has dipped in recent years.
� Information and communications technology provides enabling potential for women's lives. However the digital gender gap is apparent within countries, as women often find themselves occupying lower-level ICT jobs while men rise to higher paying, more responsible positions
(World of Work; no. 38, January February 2001)
The High Road to Teleworking
Mobile working, home-based working and the use of satellite offices and temporary touchdown bases are becoming more common. The ILO has done a report on the trend, and is trying to promote a human friendly way of developing this trend, rather than having people forced to conform with technological demands. Some countires have taken big steps to help workers. Ireland for example, has produced a Code of Practice and a model teleworking agreement.
(World of Work; no. 38, January-February 2001)
Qld "Contractors" are Employees
The QLD IR Act has a section (s275) giving the Industrial relations Commission the power to declare a class of persons who work under a contract for services to be employees. In its first decision under this section, it has declared that a group of "subcontractors" providing security services were more appropriately classified as employees. Some workers were subcontractors, while others doing similar tasks were covered by a certified agreement. The hourly rate for the subcontractors was below the base rate under the certified agreement. The employees got other benefits too, such as annual and sick leave that the subcontractors were not entitled to.
In its ruling the commission took into account the dependency and lack of bargaining power of the subcontractors. It also said that the subcontractor agreement was designed to avoid obligations of award agreement coverage.
ALHMWU, Qld Branch &Ors v Bark Australia Pty Ltd; QIRC Full Bench, no B1064 of 2000, 28/2/01
(CCH Recruitment and Termination Update, newsletter 28, 14 May 2001)
Informal Economy: Trade Unions Need to Recapture Lost Territory by Cecilia Locmant
Young people, the informal economy, gender equality are being addressed as part of a far reaching debate being undertaken by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The international trade union movement aims to rethink its role to enable a better response to the economic globalisation process and also exert a greater influence over the international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank the WTO and multinational corporations. Informal workers are in many jobs but one overriding problem faces them all - precarious employment.
(Trade Union World; no. 5, May 2001)
Dramatic increase in inequality' by John Buchanan
Enterprise bargaining has had a devastating effect on the metals sector, traditionally regarded as the pacesetter industry when it comes to Australian wages and conditions, leading to a dramatic increase in inequality, according to one of Australia's leading industrial researchers.
John Buchanan, deputy director of the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training, told a conference evaluating 10 years of enterprise he chose the metal industry as a case study as it was Australia's leading sector and 'if enterprise bargaining doesn't succeed here, it will have implications generally'.
What he found was a story of 'paradise lost', saying it was 'spine-chilling and depressing' to realise that the problems of the late 1990s were identified as early as 1982 and 1983. Far from promoting integrated career paths supported by training, wages policy contributed to growing labour market fragmentation within the metals sector, he said.
(http://www.workplaceinfo.com.au)
This week confirmed the obvious. The Coalition is a party that only feels its own pain. Having spent the last few years screwing the old, the young, the infirm, small business and the bush, (screwing workers is a given with these class warriors) the Libs saviour in waiting El Caudillo Costello tried to persuade us this week that the last five years was just a dream.
You know a party is in desperate straits when their strategists start looking at re-runs of Dallas for ideas to extract themselves from the poo.
At this point a brief recount for the young and for telephobes of one of the great pieces of popular culture that has proved to be influential in politics from the current White House and now even deep into the Australian Liberal establishment.
Dallas was the classic soap that brought the great Texan virtues of malice, treachery, self-interest, narcissism, callousness, and deceit - pretty well the ideology that underpins the White House these days - to the wider world.
It's greatest plot line - up there with anything from Lewis Carroll or any of the Latin American magical realists - was the resurrection of Bobby Ewing. Nice Guy Bobby gets wasted and written out of the show. For two years the ratings plunge. Producers have a great idea. Bobby startles and wakes in the shower - the last two years have just been a dream for cast and audience alike!
That's the preamble to this year's budget!!
Caudillo Costello's first budget in 1996 slashed ATSIC's funding, ridiculed training and trashed programs for the unemployed, screwed older workers and wasted the 'earnings credit' for those on benefits. Or did it?
'Wake up bozo it was all a bad dream,' now say the Libs. 'All those things are there. Just pinch yourself and have a look.'
The budget had other feel goody features such as a health package that targets alcoholism and mental health - definite growth areas under the Libs through their political version of want creation.
'We feel the pain, ours that is, and it's time for compassion. For us,' they really say.
How dumb do they think we all are? Take this little gem from Costello:
'(The budget) is directed at a strong economy and a just society from a prudent government.'
Go Goebbels you good thing! You can imagine The Smirk warming up in the Libs dressing shed before delivering the budget. It would be like watching Kevin Kline, the sociopath in A Fish Called Wanda.
'I'm sssssss. I'm ssssssssooooo. I'm sssssooooooorr. I'm ssssssooooorrrrry Australia.'
And they think we're going to swallow it. Even Shane Stone, a creature of the Northern Territory's Country Liberal Party -not exactly a cradle of compassionate conservatism - thinks Costello is mean, tricky, out of touch and incapable of listening.
Roll on the election. Let's send the Libs, like Bobby, back to the grave.
© 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/97/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 |