Industrial relations campaign update
-
The High Court delivered its reasons for approving the WorkChoices propaganda campaign. My initial assessment was that the majority have rendered the Senate’s budget scrutiny impotent; Kenneth Davidson agrees: “As important as the political advertising case was, it pales into insignificance compared with the violence the majority decision has done to the institution of Parliament and open and accountable government.”
-
The Government’s massive propaganda campaign — $40 million in under a month — has failed to convince the public that the IR changes are a good thing. As Andrew Norton points out, all of the major polls agree that about 30% of people think WorkChoices will be bad for Australia, while only about 10% think it will be good. Some commentators, like Michelle Grattan, think the big proportion who don’t think they will be immediately, personally affected means “the changes may not have the political ‘bite’ that the high level of opposition suggests.” The challenge for the unions is to build solidarity between skilled workers in demand, who will be insulated in the short term, and those workers who are more vulnerable.
-
Stephen Smith says the WorkChoices hotline script (you saw it here first!) shows the Government will not protect wages and conditions: “There are no guarantees that you find in this confidential briefing paper. No guarantees that living standards will be protected, no guarantee that real wages will be protected, no guarantees that anything will occur.” Meanwhile, hotline operators are “being hit with a barrage of complaints.”
-
John Howard claims WorkChoices is a natural extension of the policies of the Hawke and Keating Labor Governments — but Bob Hawke strenuously disagrees: “It is wrong. It is unfair. It is un-Australian. It is immoral… This is simply a monstrous trick on the least privileged workers in our society.”
-
The Government will introduce the IR legislation into parliament next Wednesday, hiding behind the Anti-Terrorism Bill and the Melbourne Cup. Despite the incredible complexity of the legislation, the opposition parties will have just minutes to look at the full text before the debate begins.
-
A Senate inquiry that was initially going to run for two weeks and visit all States, will now last just five days. You’d be forgiven for thinking the Government had something to hide. The terms of reference exclude most of the controversial aspects of the package, but if you can find something you’re allowed to talk about, feel free to make a submission by 9 November.
-
Backdown Barnaby has given the strongest indication yet that he’ll abandon Queensland workers when the time comes to vote.
-
John Howard keeps reminding us that his guarantee is his record on minimum wage increases, and he’s right. In almost half of its submissions to the IRC’s wage case, his Government has supported real wage cuts — and now he’s demanding a wage freeze for Australia’s lowest-paid workers.
-
Another happy-clappy worker from the WorkChoices propaganda claims to have been tricked into appearing. Melbourne hairdresser Phelia Grimwade says she was told the release form was for an occupational health and safety video, not Liberal Party propaganda.
-
A study commissioned by the WA Government shows that the proto-WorkChoices industrial relations system of the Court/Kierath Government set workers back a long way. The study looked at AWA-like workplace agreements and found “that 56 per cent of all agreements provided an ordinary rate of pay below the award rate, 74 per cent provided no weekend penalty rates and 67 per cent did not include overtime rates of pay.”
-
Kevin Andrews’ claim that WorkChoices is family friendly was rejected by the ACTU, citing a Department of Workplace Relations report as evidence. AWAs overwhelmingly do not provide parental leave, and the ACTU says “[i]t must be of little comfort to employees on individual contracts (AWAs) to know that the most common family-friendly clause in their employment contract is for leave in the terrible event that a family member dies” — and most AWAs don’t even provide that.
Pretty much everything in there makes me want to spit.
I think this is the most poignant summary of the current situation that I have yet read:
“The challenge for the unions is to build solidarity between skilled workers in demand, who will be insulated in the short term, and those workers who are more vulnerable.”
…..or any workers and the unemployed who are the most vulnerable.
But let’s not get side-tracked by people who aren’t part of your constituency and in particular don’t pay union dues to keep you in the manner to which you’ve become accustomed eh? Good Labor men should always concentrate on their real constituency here
http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,17051678-31037,00.html
Observa what’s wrong with working for your constituency? It is the responsible thing to do.
Of course unions need to pro-actively recruit among non unionised workers (& the progressive ones do), and to build alliances with the disempowered and unemployed; but unions are legally constituted bodies with rules, structures, and a moral responsibility to those who provide their resources. That is, the people who may be working for as little $14 an hour but still pay their union dues. The working people who benefit from Union-negotiated EBA’s and Union-backed Awards but don’t have the commitment to join the union (until they get into trouble at work) should expect reciprocal support.
Solidarity is about more than just words - it’s about all workers putting their money where their mouths are.
This is an IR update, Observa, which is why I didn’t include coverage of Labor’s tax package. Well, that and the fact that this post was up days before the report you’ve linked to.
I’d agree walt that unions are beholding to their members and should rightly act in their best interests, just like any vested interest group. Governments OTOH, have to govern in the interests of all, which is why they may believe particular IR reform can have significant benefits for those without such strong and vocal representation.
I understand this is an IR update Rob, but was interested in where the opponents of the govts IR reform were really coming from and juxtaposed the Beazer’s tax comments here for that purpose. It relates generally to where the unions and their friends are often coming from and where they see their true constituency, despite their self-righteous rhetoric from time to time. Still, here’s an update for you from an organisation that can perhaps see the bigger picture eh?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17063088-29277,00.html
Breaking news: Neoliberal organisation supports neoliberal policy
Nice one, Observa. By the way, I covered that report over a month ago. Try to keep up.
I had the pleasure of hearing Hawkey say his bit on ABC702 and he was fucking brilliant, clear and inspiring. I have not heard any ALP arsehole, especially Smith get anywhere close. Thank fuck for the ACTU.
I love it how observa talks about the unions’ “true constituency” and “self-righteous rhetoric”.
“Solidarity is about more than just words - it’s about all workers putting their money where their mouths are.”
It’s about forming a cartel to keep the unemployed exactly where they are, which is what Observa was trying to get at.
Unions artificially inflating minimum wages and conditions only benefits union members at the expense of the rest of society - but especially the unemployed who suffer most because of the minimum wage.
It seems like just yesterday they were dole bludgers and job snobs.
Anything to say about the world’s real cartels, Yobbo?
So what yobbo, even if unions were doing that, you’d prefer the government’s alternative of driving wages down and scerwing workers rights. I mean any decent economics student can see the effects. People who don’t have to work will be more likely not to, and those thinking about making a discretionary choice to do so will be less likely to do so (therefore laughable that Costello’s been imploring us to increase the participation rate and then Howard goes and does the very thing that will stuff it). Thus the workforce partcipation rate will go down, consumer spending will and thus economic activity will go down, and business investment will go down as demand for their products is less. And of course Howard says ‘my guarantee is my record’ and presumably he’s referring to the economy, yet the effect these changes will have on the conomy will stuff his beautiful little record. Pathetic.