Red Rag

The LHMU has put together a funny video about 36 Ways to Get Fired under WorkChoices. Yes, it does star Damo from Home & Away…

• 175 000 in Melbourne, 30 000 in Sydney, about 60 000 across Queensland, tens of thousands in Adelaide, at least 10 000 in Perth (despite the oppressive heat), tens of thousands more at smaller rallies in regional centres — and even a contingent in New Zealand. The Community Day of Protest was a resounding success. Melbourne was especially successful — the turnout doubled expectations and represented the city’s “biggest political protest on record”.

• But it’s not all about numbers, as the Government will ignore the community, but it’s about building momentum towards the next election. By all accounts, the events were friendly, engaging and inspiring, and a dejected Left is finding itself again. A movement is building:

  [T]his was no angry mob chanting hackneyed catch cries for the television cameras. It was a vast — some said the biggest — communal gathering in which all sectors of society and age groups assembled to hear and be heard on workers’ rights.

  The message was very clear and could only be misunderstood if wilfully misinterpreted — proceed with this legislation only if you are prepared for the fight of your political life, and have your bags packed at the next federal election.

• The blogosphere has photos: Weezil, Suki, Stoush.net, Webdiary, Anonymous Lefty, gjw, brokenleg. There’s more at Indymedia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Wikipedia has galleries for Melbourne and Sydney, and there’s a new Your Rights at Work group photo pool on Flickr.

• Sharan Burrow and Greg Combet spoke well, and Kim Beazley made this firm commitment: “My first act as prime minister of the nation will be to stand on the steps of Parliament and rip these laws up — these extreme laws are headed straight for the bin which is where they belong.”

• Greg Combet promised a campaign of civil disobedience — kicked off, perhaps, by the TWU briefly stopping traffic in Sydney. Combet said, “I will not pay a $33,000 fine for asking for people to be treated fairly … On such a fundamental issue we must look the Government in the eye and stare them down.” The effect of this refusal is that Combet will face jail — and “[i]f unions refuse to pay fines, and officials start going to jail for what they claim is doing their ordinary business of representing workers, voter sentiment might harden against Howard.” Be ready to support the men and women who forfeit their liberty to defend your rights.

• The forces of the Right were so threatened by the prospect of today’s rallies that they pulled out all the stops to squash them. The Federal Government threatened public servants with the sack if they attended — even if they made up the time later — but was forced to back down after the CPSU challenged its misleading memorandum. Likewise, building workers defied threats from the building industry gestapo. However, union-busting firm BGC has not ruled out prosecuting its workers for exercising their democratic right to protest unjust laws. That right was upheld by the IRC because it “will allow employees to be more fully informed about their futures in the paid workforce and the potential effect on their family life.”

• The Chamber of Commerce and Industry and The Australian were singing from the same hymn book, saying that the biggest protest in Australia’s history proved that nobody was worried about WorkChoices. But The Australian’s Brad Norington points out that the rallies “compare favourably with the Vietnam moratorium marches, indicating that community concern cannot be easily dismissed.”

• The day when half a million Australians take to the streets to defend workers’ rights might not have been the best day for Telstra to announce plans to slash 12 000 — 15 000 jobs. It will come as no surprise that Telstra supports the Government’s WorkChoices package.

• The Government’s sham inquiry into the IR package, which will ignore thousands of submissions from the public, began in the Senate this week. Labor’s Gavin Marshall was on the ball, forcing the business lobby to admit its real aims: “We’re hoping for a… we’re hoping for… Well for our… we’re hoping for a lesser [pay] increase for our industry.”

• When the Victorian IR minister Rob Hulls appeared at the inquiry, Liberal Senator Judith Troeth complained about a $55 000 advertisement Victoria had placed. Hulls didn’t miss a beat: “$55,000, not million,” he said, referring to the Howard Government’s failed propaganda campaign. “I think, with due respect senator, it is an absolute cheek for you to be asking this question.”

• NSW workplace minister John Della Bosca argued WorkChoices — which smashes unions, outlaws industrial action, and imposes the Minister’s will on all industrial agreements — is “fascistic”.

• In Question Time last week, John Howard was asked about some strange deliveries of WorkChoices booklets: 99 copies to the Indonesian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Pandas. Other apparently very interested organisations included the Curry Lovers’ Society, the Wingham Deer Hunting Foundation, the Kilabarch Hamster Loving Society, and the Porn Lovers’ Guide to Australia. A year 9 student protesting against WorkChoices arranged for around 5000 booklets to be sent to these obviously bogus groups — and yet 97% still haven’t been delivered.

• Key senators are promising to tinker at the edges of WorkChoices. Barnaby Joyce is mainly concerned with moves to scrap unfair dismissal protections, and says, “I don’t know whether there is a strong economic argument for it.” Steve Fielding is worried about working hours, and has finally twigged to the fact that the 38 hour week is not “protected by law” at all. Fielding will today announce a 10 point plan — but if he thinks ten minor amendments will fix the package, then he’s not looking at it very closely.

• The NSW Government has revealed it is considering the possibility of seeking an injunction against the new IR laws until the High Court has determined their constitutionality.

• Kim Beazley has made Labor’s position on the IR legislation clear: “I can tell you this: we’re not beating about the bush with his legislation,” he told a cheering audience. “If we get into office in 18 months to two years’ time, we’re going to rip it up.”

• Treasury told a Senate estimates hearing it “reached conclusions about likely changes to productivity” as a result of the WorkChoices package, but the Government won’t release the information. After Labor suggested this might be because the advice did not support the Government’s rhetoric, Treasury tried to back away from its earlier admission. It had produced “indicative estimates of employment effects under various scenarios”, but had not produced a detailed report. Wayne Swan says this is even worse: “Can you imagine a Government coming out with the biggest change in industrial relations in a hundred years and not doing any comprehensive modelling on that? They’d done some initial modelling, it didn’t back up the Government’s claims, so they’ve decided not to do any more modelling because they know they can’t get the evidence to back up their claims.”

• John Howard will today guillotine debate on the industrial relations legislation in order to force it through the House of Representatives without adequate scrutiny. The Bill requires far more time because, as Tim Colebatch put it, “This is an almost-impenetrable thicket of blah.”

• Don’t expect the Senate to be given a better chance to analyse the proposals. Under the terms of reference of the Senate inquiry, it will be unable to consider some of the worst attacks on collective bargaining, including “secret ballots, termination of bargaining agreements, pattern bargaining, remedies for unprotected industrial activity, strike pay, right of entry, award simplification, freedom of association and civil penalties on union officials”. But even that’s not enough for the Liberals. They now want to adopt the “unprecedented model of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases each nominating a panel of four experts to debate the WorkChoices package”. This is because the Government wants to ignore the thousands of submissions that have been made by concerned members of the public.

• The Financial Review reports — under the headline “No choice: 38-hour week under threat” (pdf) — that “employment law experts said the bill included a loophole contradicting Mr Howard’s promise” to protect the 38-hour week. Bosses can force their employees to work “reasonable additional hours” over and above their ordinary time, with no penalty rates. Professor Andrew Stewart said the working hours guarantee “is a stunt because it is so full of loopholes.”

• According to The Australian, “Businesses will be able to impose workplace agreements on staff without seeking their approval — or even consulting them — under John Howard’s new industrial changes.” Employers may lodge an agreement without the employee’s consent. It will be binding until overturned by a court, which involves considerable time and expense. This will allow employers to force low-paid employees onto AWAs, because a court challenge would be too costly and time-consuming for most workers to run.

• Labor’s claim that 60 000 WorkChoices booklets were pulped at a cost of $40 000 turned out to be false. In fact, the numbers were 458 000 and $152 000. Worse still, “6 million copies of the revised brochure were printed, but only 178 000 of them had been distributed by November 1″ — in other words, 97% of the booklets are sitting in a warehouse somewhere, and will probably be dumped because the propaganda campaign was such a failure. However,

  Labor revealed that a company called Salmat had been awarded an $800,000 contract to distribute them, and also that the company and its principals gave political donations totalling $120,000 to the Liberal and National parties. At least some people have got something out of it.

• The South Australian Government has set up a website encouraging people to tell Coalition MPs that WorkChocies Won’t Work.

• The Government’s absurd ideas about ordinary workers was revealed by Kevin Andrews’ suggestion that they could bring their accountant along to negotiate an AWA. In Question Time on Monday, Kim Beazley put this idea in its proper perspective: “Does the minister expect nurses, social workers, cleaners, bricklayers and apprentices to all bring their accountants? Minister, to assist in negotiations should Australian workers also bring along their butlers to help them make the tea?”

• The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 was introduced to Parliament on Wednesday, despite the fact that copies had not been made available to all Members of Parliament. (Tony Abbott seemed to believe that Stephen Smith could perform miracles, sharing two copies he had obtained between sixty Opposition members.) After an hour of argument about whether debate could commence — an out-of-his-depth Speaker ruled it could — “hey, presto! attendants began coming in, bent under the weight of many copies of the legislation.”

• Almost as soon as the legislation was tabled, John Howard found a way to distract attention. A recent Newspoll that found Labor was making inroads on industrial relations also showed that national security remained a priority in the electorate, so it is no surprise that Howard played the terror card.

  The PM called an urgent media conference to announce there was “specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat”. It was suspicious: Even The Australian, which (to put it mildly) has been supportive of Howard lately, was forced to admit:

  On Wednesday, the Prime Minister indulged in what looked remarkably like a stunt designed to use the gravity of the terror threat to focus community attention on his unimpeachable standing as the nation’s leader rather than his role as the sponsor of the divisive workplace reform legislation.

  Howard conceded that this urgent new threat was not enough to raise the terrorism alert level; nor was it enough to involve the National Counter-Terrorism Committee, or to lead to arrests — despite the urgent recall of the Senate to change one word of law. Of course, if there is an imminent threat, it raises questions about whether Howard was prepared to tip off terrorists in order to score political points.

• The labour movement’s claims that the title “Fair Pay Commission” is misleading have been borne out by the text of the legislation. The current legislation explicitly requires the IRC to make its decisions with fairness in mind — but that requirement will be cut from the new laws. La Trobe University’s Jill Murray said, “You take those other factors out and the minimum wage will be retarded. It can’t be cut but it can be eroded in real terms.”

• Queensland and New South Wales have announced their plans to mount a High Court challenge to the WorkChoices legislation, arguing that parts of it may be unconstitutional. Kevin Andrews told parliament he expected the laws to be upheld by a wide view of the corporations power — but the current bench has given no clear indication of how broad an interpretation it is prepared to adopt. This is an important matter that requires clarification, even if the States ultimately fail.

  A previously unannounced provision will also raise constitutional issues. After Howard demanded a Federal wage freeze, unions and State Governments planned to bring minimum wage claims to State industrial bodies — “[b]But the Federal Government has stymied the plan by giving the [Fair Pay] Commission powers to stop state commissions from dealing with any matter before the federal body.” This is a more significant curtailment of States’ rights than had been anticipated.

• John Howard has abandoned all pretence that workers’ current standards will be protected. The new comparison is not against what you’ve got now, but against unemployment. He uses the glib line, “Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.” But the same sentiment was expressed more clearly by then IR minister Tony Abbott in 2002: “[A] bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband. Not withstanding all his or her faults, you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss.” WorkChoices puts Abbott’s view into legislation, by forcing workers either to accept an abusive, degrading workplace relationship or join the dole queue.

• The Government’s insistence that people’s existing agreements will be respected is simply untrue. The Age reported that the legislation will allow companies to use bogus restructuring plans to force their staff onto cut-rate AWAs: “Companies could slash wages by retrenching their workforce and rehiring staff under ‘greenfield’ deals — forcing workers onto individual contracts in the process — as part of John Howard’s $500 million industrial relations revolution.”

• Claims that WorkChoices encourages voluntary agreement-making are also unfounded. The Government will severely restrict the matters that may be included in a workplace deal, even if the employer and employees agree on it. For example, “if workers and their bosses want to provide appeal rights for workers who believe they were sacked unfairly”, they face steep fines. Furthermore, the laws give Kevin Andrews “the power to strip from federal awards or agreements any condition he chooses, without consulting Parliament, industrial lawyers say.” This is not about cooperation. It is about slashing pay, stripping conditions, and smashing unions.

• Kim Beazley claims the new legislation “seems to say, despite what the explanatory memorandum says, and despite all the Government claims, that an employer can in fact demand you sign the contract or you lose your job.” The Government denies this, saying the current arrangement will continue to apply — which means you can’t be sacked for refusing an AWA, but you can be locked out of work, indefinitely, without pay. Alternatively, under the new changes, the boss can unilaterally end your collective agreement, putting you on the five statutory minima and giving you a massive pay cut while you make up your mind. What’s more, the Office of Employment Advocate admitted it will no longer ensure that workers weren’t forced to sign AWAs against their will.

• Industrial relations experts say WorkChoices will place Australia behind Britain and the United States in terms of workers’ rights. Chris Briggs says the regime does not recognise collective bargaining rights. David Peetz agrees that “[i]n many respects we’ll have legislation more antagonistic to workers’ interests”.

• Under parliamentary privilege, Labor’s Kelvin Thompson suggested that one of the men behind the WorkChoices propaganda campaign, Liberal stalwart Ted Horton, was under investigation by the ATO for tax evasion: “It is too cute by half that this massive, lucrative contract given out by Liberal Party insiders just happens to go to the Liberal Party’s own advertising team. The public want to know how these contracts were awarded, they want to see the documents, they want to know what checks the Government has to ensure contracts don’t go to tax avoiders.”

• Peter Costello was right: there is no magic in the number 100. Through some sneaky new language, all companies will be able to sidestep unfair dismissal protections by characterising the unfair sacking as being done partly for “operational reasons” — defined broadly as anything of an “economic, technological, structural or similar nature relating to the employer’s undertaking, establishment, service or business”. Professor David Peetz is worried that this will allow companies to “target people you want to get rid of,” with “no recourse against you.” The Melbourne Institute’s Mark Wooden says although the new provisions “sounded reasonable”, in fact “the changes would give employers the potential to avoid all unfair dismissal claims”.

• The Government is so scared that the public will hear about about AWAs being used to slash conditions that it will jail people for six months for leaking or receiving information about AWAs. Unions NSW’s John Robertson said, “They are criminalising industrial law. Six months jail for revealing that someone has had their conditions cut is absurd.”

• Despite fiery parliamentary performances, Labor is aware that the industrial relations battle is going to be long and hard. Kim Beazley described WorkChoices as “like a nest of termites that in the months and years ahead will slowly eat away at the foundations of living standards of Australian families”. He said Labor is “a parliamentary vanguard at the head of a mass movement of millions united to fight for mateship and the fair go at work”. Greg Combet said “very nasty people in big business law firms … know exactly what they are doing in ensuring criminal sanctions for peaceful union activity” — unionists will go to jail. And Combet insisted that he would be on the front line: “I’m not above the fray. I don’t think you can expect others to be on the front line and not be there. I intend to be there.”

• You should be there too. Join the community protest on Tuesday, 15 November.

• The Government will introduce its industrial relations legislation to parliament tomorrow. Surely Kevin Andrews, a devout Catholic, couldn’t have missed the significance of on All Souls’ Day, which commemorates the faithful departed? It certainly resonates with a report that says WorkChoices will shorten the lives of low-income workers. The study cited evidence from New Zealand that similar changes led to a rise in “mortality rates… [c]ardiovascular disease, lung cancer, other cancers and suicides”.

• The NSW Government announced it would spend $300 000 on a Fair Go advertising campaign and website to defend its industrial relations system. The Liberal Party somehow kept a straight face while complaining, even though the WorkChoices campaign has already cost “$44.3 million for ads, $8.1 million for call centres and $2.6 million on 16-page brochures”. The public is outraged, and a leaked Telstra report shows they have been calling the WorkChoices hotline to complain.

• The Business Council of Australia, which represents the nation’s 100 biggest companies, launched its own advertising campaign this week. At least $6 million will be spent pushing IR changes as well as tax cuts for the rich. Although the ads are less patronising than the Government’s, Stuart Wilson warns they may backfire: “Members of the BCA are among the most highly paid individuals in the country, and this advertising campaign has the real potential to make debate on workplace reforms even more polarised between the haves and have-nots.”

• Barnaby Joyce is again threatening to cross the floor, raising concerns about the exploitation of young people: “You have to be mindful of people with no bargaining power.” But when the NSW Council of Catholic School Parents put forward a sensible proposal to teach young people how to stand up for their rights at work, it was dismissed by the Government as “an insult to the intelligence of young people”.

• After the Government broke its promise to provide a family impact statement on his IR proposals, Unions NSW stepped in to commission its own study. It asked Dr Don Edgar, the foundation director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, to produce a family impact statement. After considering the WorkChoices package, Edgar concluded: “None of this looks family-friendly or equitable, and offers flexibility not for the workers but for a boss wanting to screw the last dollar out of the last breath of effort of workers already struggling to meet their reciprocal work and family responsibilities.”

• Meanwhile, a prominent US analyst has confirmed the ACTU’s belief that its ad campaign has been a rousing success:

  Thirty-five per cent (!!) of the electorate said they were less likely to vote for the Coalition in the next election because of the proposed IR changes. That’s a gigantic number.

  The [Financial Review] pooh-poohs the fact that ‘only 20 per cent of respondents who voted for the Liberal Party or Nationals in 2004 said they are now less likely to vote for the Coalition because of the Government’s approach to industrial relations.’ Only 20 per cent. That’s enough shift to win the next election.

• To have your say about the WorkChoices package, complete this survey.

Update: The ACTU has changed the Your Rights At Work website, and this new version is much better.

• 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.

What’s this? Could it be the WorkChoices hotline script? It includes gems like:

How do I know if I’m employed by a Constitutional Corporation?

ANSWER

If you are not sure about whether or not your employer is a Constitutional corporation you should first ask your employer whether they know if their business is a Constitutional corporation. If your employer is also unsure about whether their business is a Constitutional corporation then they may seek independent legal advice on this matter.

Does that clear it up for you?

And then there’s the claim that the No Disadvantage Test “creates uncertainty for … employees”, and “fails to provide a consistent minimum standard which all agreements must meet”.

Or this one:

How often will the minimum wages be increased?

ANSWER

The Australian Fair Pay Commission will set and adjust minimum wages periodically.

That often, huh?

Will people still be paid overtime if they work more than 38 hrs per week?
Answer

The reforms won’t affect an employee’s current right to be paid overtime… unless an employer and employee agree to alternative arrangements.

How will penalty rates for weekend work be affected?

The proposed reforms will not affect an employee’s existing right to be paid penalty rates for weekend work… unless an employer and employee agree to alternative arrangements.

Oh, and I love this one, too:

What is the total spending on Communication campaigns?

At this stage, the planned scope and form of the information campaign has not been finalised. So, no precise figures are available as to the total amount of money that will be spent on the campaign.

Really? I’ve heard it will cost another $20 million over the next ten days…

Each page of the script is marked, “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, DO NOT REMOVE FROM THE WORKPLACE”, so I guess the Government didn’t want us to see it — but then, what did they expect when they hired people to tell us how well employees would be treated under the new package, and then sacked them at short notice?

• The Government’s advertising campaign has been ineffective so far. A Morgan poll says only 1% more people have heard of the IR proposals since the WorkChoices campaign began. 49% of respondents opposed the package, with a measly 17% in support.

• In particular, the WorkChoices hotline has been a spectacular failure. The operators are worried about the information they are giving out — they’re forced to mislead workers, while giving employers advice on how to sack people and cut their wages. The Government has already sacked fifty call centre staff in Sydney because nobody was ringing the hotline, and Crikey reported yesterday that a Melbourne call centre was also closed, “apparently because of a lack of public interest about the new workplace changes.”

• After reviewing the policy detail announced last week, the Salvation Army has joined the ranks of religious opposition to WorkChoices: “When you look at this reform package from the most disadvantaged in Australia, it is not ethical because it exploits them.” Meanwhile, Anglican Primate Dr Phillip Aspinall has reiterated his concerns, and promised to scrutinise the legislation closely.

• The WorkChoices propaganda campaign has been talking up the Office of Workplace Services, promising that “your rights will be protected” by it — but the facts tell a different story. In 2002-03, it received 5254 complaints, substantiated 3500, but only recovered monies in 3 cases. With a prosecution success rate of less than 1% of substantiated claims, it’s hard to believe the Office will protect anything at all.

• We’ve all heard about Billy, the jobseeker who is offered a “take it or leave it” AWA that strips him of all holidays, penalty rates, and overtime loadings, with no compensatory wage increase. Kevin Andrews confirmed that if Billy turns down the job because he doesn’t want to be exploited, he will be breached and lose his Centrelink payments.

• When Peter Costello said there was “nothing magic in a number”, it was thought he planned to scap unfair dismissal protections across the board at some point in the future. But lawyers are questioning whether the Government is already weakening protections for workers in big firms, by reversing the current onus of proof in certain cases: “The question which is not answered in WorkChoices is how is the onus of proof going to work in the future.”

• It will be harder for researchers to assess the impact of the WorkChoices package, because the Australian Bureau of Statistics is scrapping an important work-related statistical measure. Starting next year, the ABS Earnings and Hours survey will no longer ask on what basis people are employed — which means it will be impossible to compare AWAs to other measures. The Government was embarrassed by ABS figures that show non-managerial workers earn less than people on collective agreements.

• While the WorkChoices propaganda claims it will provide family-friendly workplaces, the truth is it will wind back recent gains won by unions in the Industrial Relations Commission. Dr Jill Murray asked, “Why go back to the 1970s standards when we have got a 2005 standard? It’s a tragedy for families. It is going to be desperately hard for them to achieve a work-family balance”.

• Kim Beazley challenged John Howard to a televised debate on the IR changes; Howard is chicken.

• Workers who feature in the Government’s WorkChoices propaganda campaign are fuming about being misled: they were told they were being filmed for a workplace safety video. Kevin Andrews says they signed a release form, but perhaps they wouldn’t have signed it if they knew what the footage was actually going to be used for?

• The Electrical Trades Union has embraced the internet to keep its members informed and campaign against the Howard Government. Phil Cleary says, “Our members express frustration about how the media portrays trade unionists, so we see the podcast as a way to disseminate more objective and independent views about trade unionists.” Find out more about the Spark podcast, or subscribe to the feed.

This is a big one…

• Because the Government hadn’t finished drafting the legislation but wanted to press ahead with its propaganda campaign, it was forced to relaunch its industrial relations policy. Business leaders were summoned to Canberra to be given a special “lock-up” briefing about the package. Apparently, “One invitee isn’t coming because, among other reasons, he thought it a bit rich to be asked to give up his day off. Did anyone in the Government notice the symbolism?” Stephen Smith complained about the event’s exclusivity: “John Howard will brief industry and business — continuing to keep 10 million employees in the dark about these proposals.”

• The policy and advertising campaign is now called WorkChoices. Its orange colour was stolen from the ACTU’s Rights at Work campaign, and the people in the ads have copped flak for being ridiculously happy. Alan Wood (pro-Government commentator), mocked its “groups of workers so happy in their jobs that one suspects indulgence in illicit chemicals.” Kim Beazley condemned the package for “using Orwellian language and Stalinist images”: the Government was “trying to present a new version of “Happy Workers in Tractor Factory Number 451.’” It’s also worth noting that all of the people featured in the ads are white.

• The rush to begin advertising before the legislation has been drafted has attracted criticism. Michelle Grattan says “[t]he time to inform the public about changes is after a policy has been legislated”, and WorkChoices is “nothing more or less than a propaganda campaign.” Former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett says the ads are a waste of money because before the legislation has been seen, “everyone’s fundamentally responding to shadows”.

Read the rest of this entry…

Thanks, Tony!

Update: Other bloggers are joining in. This is from Rooster (who points out that the Government’s ads stole their orange colour from the Rights at Work campaign):

And this is from Weezil (who says “John HoWARd’s idea of workplace ‘flexibility’ involves you, the worker, being able to assume the position”):

This one’s from Sub Junctive:

Update: A comrade sent through a couple more parodies (pdf).

If you see any more, point ‘em out. I’ll collate them in this post.

Why can’t I get an electronic copy of the WorkChoices booklet? I’m at the website, I want to save a couple of taxpayer dollars in postage, but I can’t. Now I have to wait a few days to find out how I’ll be shafted. (Seriously, if anyone has access to a PDF copy, I’d be most grateful.) Update: I found it, by ignoring the WorkChoices site and instead googling for “workchoices 68″. Anyway, here it is.

• The ACTU’s legal challenge to the Government’s IR propaganda was rejected by the High Court, apparently on a technicality. In a brief media statement (pdf), the Court said it was “not appropriate to answer” whether the Government’s spending was properly authorised. At this stage, it is not possible to say why the claim was rejected, or by what majority; the reasons will be published within weeks. The Government claims its legal bill for this case was over $200 000, and will try to force the ACTU to pay.

• Michelle Grattan reminds us that the Government has not been vindicated by the High Court’s decision: “Just because the Howard Government has won the legal argument does not mean it is on the right side of the real one. The taxpayer should not have to fund a multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign.” In September, Labor introduced a Private Member’s Bill that would give the Public Service Commissioner the power to audit Government advertising.

• Meanwhile, the Government has been trying to get the ACTU’s latest round of ads off the air — but it prefers the backroom to the courtroom, with the PM’s mates pulling the strings. The unions claimed “there had been efforts to stop the union movement’s ads being screened at the MCG during quarter-time breaks”, which the Government denied. But a media and politics newsletter reported to subscribers that “Crikey knows it happened. The big question is whether the PM took umbrage and personally asked the MCC to pull the ads, or whether [MCC chief Stephen] Gough took it upon himself because he was our dear leader’s host for the day?”

• Family First senator Steve Fielding is calling for a probe into overtime — he wants to know whether penalty rates effectively discourage antisocial working hours, and whether there might be other ways to achieve an eight hour day. Fielding seems to be hinting at greater regulation of working hours. He also believes the Industrial Relations Commission is the ideal body to undertake this study.

• A Melbourne labour lawyer has warned employers that workers with no real avenue to challenge their unfair sacking might turn to “self help” remedies outside the legal system. Julian told HRmonthly workers might “resort to some form of payback — perhaps arson, sabotage or physical violence against their former employers”. He also predicts an increase in occupational health and safety complaints, equal opportunity claims, and prosecutions under the Trade Practices Act, which could cost more than the low-cost unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

• A report by Four Corners on the Government’s IR plan revealed that even its backers don’t agree with the Government’s claims about its effects. The Australian Industry Group’s Heather Ridout rejected the idea that removing unfair dismissal protections would boost employment: “You’re not gonna go around putting on more people just because the unfair termination laws have changed.” Asked whether she could “cite any economic evidence that individual contracts actually boost productivity?”, Ridout said, “No.” A succession of labour market economists agreed with her, and said the economic evidence was against the Government. Another highlight was Sally Neighbour’s question to the Prime Minister: “What’s the point of scrapping the no disadvantage test if not to allow people to be disadvantaged?”

• Mark Wooden (described by The Australian as “a leading economics academic known for his past support of government policy”) turned against the Government this week. In a speech to a conference in Melbourne, he gave the plans a “C minus” and said, “If the aim of the IR reforms is to provide employees with real choices, then I am on Greg Combet’s side.” He accused the Government of “pork-barrelling or … just acquiescence to some employer interest.”

• John Howard used his speech at the WA Liberal Party’s conference to “steel his troops” for the IR battle — but even that soft audience wasn’t convinced. WA Liberal leader Matt Birney refused to back down, and continues to oppose Howard’s plans on States’ rights grounds.

• The WA conference was the platform for John Howard’s announcement that workers would be given $4000-worth of preliminary legal advice about their alleged unlawful dismissal — but “[l]awyers, unionists and politicians have branded [the plan] a hoax.” The subsidy is for preliminary advice only, and can not be put towards the $30 000-odd it costs to bring a case to the Federal Court. It will be paid to a Government-picked law firm, who will almost invariably advise the sacked worker not to bother — especially since Howard’s new laws will make it easier for employers to rebut the unlawful dismissal claim.

Update:

• A Melbourne human resources company has revealed how business will use the Government’s new IR laws. It promises to take firms “outside of the industrial regime”: to force employees to sign individual agreements against their will, to establish sham contracting arrangements, and to smash unions.

• Despite repeated assurances that the IR legislation was being prepared according to schedule, John Howard has cancelled a sitting week of the House of Representatives because Kevin Andrews and his team of seconded lawyers couldn’t get the job done. This is despite recent calls from the National Party for the detail of the proposals to be revealed sooner rather than later.

• Prominent Jesuit lawyer Frank Brennan has defended the right of clergy to enter political debates, saying “[i]t is far too cavalier for government or their supporters to dismiss church leaders” when they disagree with government policy.

• Certainly the Government will have trouble dismissing Cardinal George Pell, a close ally of John Howard and Tony Abbott, who thinks there ought to be “a modest strengthening” of unions’ role in society: “I think we need strong and effective and humane and altruistic unions to continue to dialogue with these people. I am certainly not supportive of a radical rethink of the unions. I think that’s gone far enough, you might even argue it’s gone a bit too far.”

• Kevin Andrews says the Government will attempt to squash the minimum wage claim when the Industrial Relations Commission holds a directions hearing. If it does so, the ACTU will take its case to the State commissions.

• Last time John Howard turned his attention to the skills crisis, he fiddled the figures so that burger-flippers were counted as apprentices. This time Howard wants to bring apprenticeships under his low pay commission, so they will be paid “at levels that ensure they are competitive in the labour market” — in other words, their wages will be slashed. Stephen Smith says this is “a long standing policy obsession”, and remembers John Howard’s 1992 call for a youth wage of just $3/hour.

• The Police Federation of Australia is concerned that the Howard Government’s industrial relations plan “will have a significant adverse impact on the [police] force nation-wide.” Its national conference will discuss the issue, and is particularly concerned about the inclusion of productivity targets if officers are forced onto AWAs. Sergeant Burgess says the community would not like officers “to be judged on the number of infringement notices they issue or the number of people they arrest”.

• The Government’s CFMEU-busting body will be headed by John Lloyd, a Liberal stooge who played a leading role in the attacks of the Kennett (Vic) and Court (WA) Liberal governments on workers’ rights. In his first media conference after taking the job, he did not rule out using the ABCC’s powers in a Gestapo type way:

  JOURNALIST: Mr Lloyd, the unionists have been very critical of these moves and have suggested that these new powers will be used in a Gestapo like way. What’s your response to that?

  JOHN LLOYD: Well, if they are used in the Gestapo type way, the commission will, as I say, use whatever powers it has available to it to respond to the cases which it is investigating in which it feels appropriate to institute proceedings.

• While Kevin Andrews has successfully bullied the Archdiocese of Melbourne into submission, the Australian Catholic Commission for Employment Relations is not so easily pushed around. In a briefing paper for Catholic bishops, ACCER said it has “particular problems with the introduction of a minimum wage based on the requirements of a single adult employee without family responsibilities; the abolition of unfair dismissal rights in businesses of less than 100 employees; and changes to the no-disadvantage test that is applied to collective and individual agreements.”

• The IMF supports the Government’s IR plans, because it understands what their real goal is: cutting wages. The IMF complains that “minimum wages are relatively high at almost 60 percent of median earnings of full-time male employees”, and notes that abolishing the no-disadvantage test and establishing a low pay commission will undermine the current egalitarian system. (Update: See Ross Gittins.)

• Although their advertisements are no longer on television, unions have continued a grass-roots campaign to inform the community about the Government’s plans. And it’s not just preaching to the converted: “I’m a pretty conservative sort of bloke, raced three kids, average family, um and yet this particular issue has made me come and attend this type of union meeting for the first time in my life.”

• Although Telstra would have contributed to Howard’s recent popularity fall, it is industrial relations that is changing votes: “For consumers, or the Australian community in general, the government’s proposed workplace changes were considered negative pretty much every way you looked at it.”

• After selling out his constituents on the sale of Telstra, Mark Vaile is desperately trying to convince his fellow National MPs to tow the Liberal line on industrial relations. He wants to see the detail as soon as possible (don’t we all!), and says he will “concentrate on passing the workplace relations legislation, which the Nationals unanimously support.” That unanimity must be news to Barnaby Joyce, who is still threatening to cross the floor on IR, especially over the removal of unfair dismissal protections.

• The Office for the Employment Advocate, which is responsible for monitoring AWAs, assessed contracts against the wrong award. As a result, employees were underpaid by thousands of dollars. The incompetent, anti-worker OEA will have an increased role in the new industrial relations system.

• The Government has been testing its advertising campaign on focus groups — who apparently don’t like what they’ve seen: “secret focus groups used to trial [the] $20 million advertising campaign on workplace reforms have been left confused and concerned about the changes.” Participants thought the main ad was “light on detail and distant from people’s lives”, and they were “concerned” that one of the ads “implied that if a worker left an award he or she could not return to it.” It can’t avoid that implication, because it’s true — but this demonstrates that people can see through the Government’s weasel words. The Australian reports that the ads are “very political.” Meanwhile, the High Court is yet to decide whether the advertising outlays are constitutionally valid.

Update:

• The ACTU will put the Government on the back foot by launching a minimum wage claim in the Industrial Relations Commission this week. The Government will be forced either to undercut the union claim, or attempt to stop the process — thereby ensuring an 18 month wage freeze for Australia’s lowest-paid workers. The case will highlight John Howard’s record: he has argued for real wage cuts in four of the last nine years, and workers would be $50/week worse off if the AIRC had listened to the Prime Minister. The Australian’s Brad Norington writes, “The ACTU is not just thwarting the Government, it is laying down a serious challenge.”

• The Tasmanian Government reiterated its intention to quarantine as many workers as possible from the Howard Government’s IR changes. Kevin Andrews said it was futile because “if there’s a clash between federal and state law then the federal laws prevail so it just is grandstanding and the State Government knows that.” But John Howard was not so confident, and sidestepped questions on the issue.

• Kevin Andrews also called on the Tasmanian Government to voluntarily cede its IR powers to the Commonwealth — but he hasn’t even convinced the Tasmanian Liberals: “State Opposition Leader Rene Hidding also confirmed he would not be calling for the Tasmanian system of industrial relations to be abolished or disbanded.”

• Carolyn Sutherland has serious concerns about the impact of Howard’s industrial relations scheme: “By abolishing the no-disadvantage test and removing the commission’s role in scrutinising agreements, fundamental entitlements may well be bargained away without due consideration of the effect on family and community life.” Dr Don Edgar sees it as an attack on working families: “None of this looks family-friendly or equitable, and offers flexibility not for the workers but for a boss wanting to screw the last dollar out of the last breath of effort, for workers already struggling to meet their reciprocal work and family responsibilities.” And Ross Fitzgerald says we should not ignore “draconian welfare changes that aim to create a desperate class of mothers, injured and disabled all willing to take up work on the low-wage, insecure jobs that will come about from the IR changes.”

• A poll commissioned by the AMWU, which sought the opinions of 600 workers in Coalition-held marginal seats around the country, found overwhelming opposition to Howard’s IR agenda.

• Unions are planning to make 15 November a “historic day” of community protest against the Howard Government. The ACTU’s Sharran Burrow predicted “it will be the biggest workers’ rally ever as the union movement uses Sky Channel to link workers in country towns, regional centres and capital cities.” Put it in your diaries, and make any leave arrangements you need to get time off work.

• Evatt Foundation president Bruce Childs says, “In my view, the sleeper issue that will emerge, is the way pensioners over a period of time will lose out. The pension is determined on average weekly wages. … If minimum wage increases can be slowed down, then, over time, pensioners will suffer.” At a public forum in rural NSW, union secretary John Robertson made a similar point: “If those wages are frozen or reduced it will have a direct impact on the pension as it will stop it going up. Don’t be fooled into believing that the IR changes just relate to work because they don’t.”