Red Rag

I’ve been reading the transcripts of the ACTU’s High Court challenge to the Government’s industrial relations advertisements (day 1, day 2). At times the Court gets bogged down in specific details of documents that we mere mortals can’t see, which can be confusing, but for the most part it is a very interesting case.

Justice Gummow said the advertising “[s]ounds like a healthy bout of political free speech” and his interjections generally favoured the Government. Justice Kirby responded that such free speech is “generally is not funded from the public purse”, and later noted that

[t]he question is, if you do you use public funds, is the law of the Constitution such that we should read the Appropriation Act in a fairly strict way so that Parliament has a transparent opportunity to address itself to authorising that to be done.

Indeed, the plaintiffs do not suggest that the appropriation was invalid — they argue that the expenditure on advertising went beyond its scope and was not authorised by the appropriation. It is very interesting to see the Government’s lawyer try — unsuccessfully, in my view — to explain how the advertising fits the appropriation.

Read the rest of this entry…

• A senior industrial relations judge says there is “no compelling impetus in fact or in substance” for a major overhaul of Australia’s IR system. The vice-president of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, Justice Walton, told a symposium at Sydney University:

  I suspect that the true distinguishing feature of the proposed reforms is that they challenge root and branch, for the first time, the sometimes unstated philosophies and values which have underpinned the industrial model in Australia.

  It has been apparently seriously questioned that fairness is an outmoded concept and, in fact, counter-productive in employment relationships, decision making or award agreement making. This approach is the antithesis of the objectives of the current industrial systems, if not the ethos of our society.

• Tomorrow, the High Court will consider the legality of the Government’s industrial relations propaganda. Last week, it emerged that legal advice to the Government in 1998 suggested that appropriations needed a fair degree of specificity. Henry Burmester QC said there must be a “reasonable attempt to describe the purpose of the appropriation”, and that “outcomes such as ‘good government’ are, in my view, insufficiently specific.” This is the basis of the ACTU’s case: it says the item “higher productivity, higher pay workplaces” is too vague to be valid. Labor says that if the High Court decides the spending was unauthorised, the Liberal Party should repay the $5 million that’s already been spent.

• Unions are planning to levy their members to finance a new round of advertising against the Howard Government’s proposed IR changes. Members will contribute about $5.50 each. Kevin Andrews said this was “extraordinary”, because the legislation hasn’t yet been drafted — but his Government has already spent $5 million spinning his unfinished package, and is planning at least $20 million more.

• John Howard’s claim to have delivered a 14% pay rise to Australian workers is misleading. New research by acirrt shows that while the top ten percent of wage earners saw a rise of 13.8% between 1998 and last year, the median rise was 2.6%. The bottom twenty percent saw an increase of just 1.2%. Meanwhile, “over the same period the incomes of the 50 highest-paid Australian chief executives had increased by 194 per cent”, and “by up to 230 per cent if earnings from share options were taken into consideration.”

• The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, has criticised the Government’s industrial relations propaganda plans, saying they lacked transparency and accountability, and might be unconstitutional. The Government responded by suggesting — hypothetically, of course — that Evans uses amphetamines. When grilled by Coalition Senators, the Clerk explained why he raised his concerns: “Now, if you only keep Advisors to say that everything you’ve done is totally correct and perfect, then it’s not much good keeping them at all.” He says he is not partisan, and last time government advertising was a political issue, the Government relied on the advice of “one of the nation’s foremost legislative experts, Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Senate” to defend itself. Labor has proposed legislation to increase accountability.

• The Office of Workplace Services, the Government agency that will police workplaces instead of the independent Industrial Relations Commission, has no staff in Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania or South Australia. Its online services are mainly accessed by employers.

• Instead of using TAFEs to address the skills shortage, the Government is using them to enforce its ideological agenda — they will lose funding if TAFE administrations choose not to offer AWAs to their staff. And schools will be next: the Government will “play hard” in overriding State responsibilities to push AWAs.

• The Australian’s Paul Kelly suggests Howard will make a “modest concession” on IR, perhaps by “cutting from 100 to 50 employees the size of a company exempt from the unfair dismissal laws”. Industry is urging him to stand firm, to maximise “flexibility” by undermining workers’ rights.

• While the majority of Australians remain opposed to the Government’s industrial relations agenda, John Howard has the support of a multimillionaire employer who was prepared to pay $25 000 for the chance to talk to the PM about the need to squeeze workers. Hagen Stehr’s wife was impressed by how well Jeannette Howard organised the dinner (I’m sure she prepared the meal herself…) and said, “It was just like visiting friends.”

• Sixty-four national womens’ organisations have raised concerns about the impact of the proposed industrial relations changes on women, due to their relative “lack of bargaining power, bargaining confidence and information about workforce rights and terms and conditions”. Marie Coleman said, “Some are concerned by the impact for women clustered in unskilled part-time jobs, mostly paying around $13 an hour. If we don’t protect the capacity of these women to have some family life as well as earn a modest income, we are going to really damage Australian families”.

• Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has revealed the Government’s wage-cutting agenda. In an unguarded comment at the end of an interview on talkback radio, he said, “We’ve got to ensure that industrial relations reform continues so we have the labour prices of New Zealand.” Wages in New Zealand are significantly lower than in Australia. Stephen Smith said this meant John Howard’s discussion of China and India took on a new significance: “It’s now a race to the bottom, as if somehow we can compete with China or India by adopting their wage levels.”

• In a surprise move, ACTU secretary Greg Combet used a speech to the Australian Industry Group to propose a system of union recognition ballots similar to those used in England, Canada and the United States. Combet outlined the UK model:

  If more than 50% of the employees are union members, collective bargaining is automatically recognised and there can be no contest about it. If less than 50% of the employees are unionised, and there is no voluntary recognition of collective bargaining by the employer, then a ballot of the employees can be conducted by a Government agency. A ballot will only be held if at least 10% of employees are union members.

  Collective bargaining recognition occurs if a majority of those who vote, vote in favour. A good faith bargaining process then ensues. It is a breach of good faith for an employer to offer individual contracts. Once a collective agreement is reached it is binding and enforceable upon both parties for its term. The employer cannot contract out of the agreement by entering into individual contracts with employees, and the union is similarly legally bound to respect the agreement.

  The ABC’s Alison Caldwell noted the possibility that this might backfire if employees voted against the union, but Combet thinks it a risk worth taking. The CPSU has endorsed Combet’s idea: “Yes, this proposal puts pressure on unions to get out and win the hearts and minds of a majority of workers, but the CPSU welcomes that challenge.” The Government dismissed it out of hand.

Over in England, airline catering company Gate Gourmet decided to sack its unionised workforce and replace them with cheaper, non-union workers. Their plan was set out in an internal memo:

Recruit, train and security check drivers. Announce intention to trade union, provoking unofficial industrial action from staff. Dismiss current workforce. Replace with new staff.

The Daily Mirror revealed the company’s extensive plan, which involved “immediate dismissal without legal protection”, and replacement workers brought in from Eastern Europe through a labour hire firm. The guest workers would live in flats provided by Gate Gourmet, with the rent deducted from their pay. These workers were to be trained in advance, possibly at a RAF base in Kent.

After a year of planning, Gate Gourmet put their scheme into action a fortnight ago. After pushing for permanent staff to be laid off because there was not enough work, they called in 160 casuals. Naturally, the workforce was pissed off by the company’s duplicity, and a large number went out on strike. As they had planned all along, Gate sacked 670 staff — by announcing it to them over a megaphone. They also sacked several people who were on maternity leave, for “illegal union activity”.

The campaign for the staff Gate Gourmet has been running ever since. 1000 baggage handlers took sympathy action that grounded British Airways flights, and the sacked workers have maintained a community picket ever since. You can give them your support through LabourStart’s online campaign.

Unfortunately, the bullied workers’ prospects aren’t good:

The bitter truth is that it’s over. The Gate Gourmet workers are summarily sacked and there is nothing much they or their union can do about it. British Airways is back in the skies, with Gate Gourmet now providing meals assembled by a new workforce hired through the temp agency Blue Arrow.

The temps are mainly newly arrived east Europeans and Somalis. When I called Blue Arrow in Uxbridge to ask about the pay rate for catering assistants, it was £6 an hour – as expected, a lower rate than that of the sacked workers.

[...]

Gate Gourmet screws down pay in very British style while FTSE company directors pay themselves a very British 16% rise, with a typical CEO on £2.5m. So where is the indignation? Where is the leadership that dares even whisper a question about this growing social dislocation? People are left to presume that there is no alternative to some malign economic force beyond human control. The truth is that penury and greed are political choices, not economic destiny: we can be Nordic, not American, and we can be John Lewis, not Gate Gourmet, employers if we choose.

Australians need to realise that this is the choice that now faces us. We can stand back and let John Howard introduce industrial laws that are designed to bring Gate Gourmet’s tactics to Australia (the Government supported them on the waterfront, and more recently at Boeing, and Gate Gourmet is setting up here, too). Or we can fight to protect the imperfect but generally fair system we’ve got.

• The ACTU has pounced on Kevin Andrews’ suggestion of a Senate inquiry into the industrial relations legislation, but the Government is not keen. Liberal Senator George Brandis said the idea is “stupid” because, “There’s nothing in this for us.” He’s worried that people will hear about how the changes will impact on their rights. A current inquiry into AWAs, for example, has heard from a 22-year-old Krispy Kreme employee who said, “I did not wish to be employed on an AWA but I was compelled to sign the agreement.” The deal forced her to work unsociable shifts, including long hours and split shifts with no overtime.

• Kim Beazley addressed a rally of truck-drivers at Parliament House, promising that Labor will restore their rights to collective bargaining. The Government will legislate to make collective bargaining by “independent” contractors illegal as “collusion” — a throwback to the anti-combination laws of the 18th and 19th centuries. The TWU, whose members’ rights will be severely curtailed, predicts fatal consequences: “There have already been 103 deaths in the long haul transport industry on NSW roads in the past year. We explained to Kevin Andrews that this carnage will increase if drivers are pushed to work longer hours, which they will have to under the proposed legislation.” The union will meet with thousands of truck-drivers to discuss a possible campaign of civil disobedience.

• The truckies’ plight has brought the churches back to the IR debate. Catholic priest Fr Thomas Casanova demanded, “Legislators should think first, not of profits, but of people — that’s you truck drivers and your families. Owner-drivers must retain a real ability to be represented while they’re out there on the road … carrying our clothes, our food and our nation.” Meanwhile, a delegation of Anglican clergy led by Archbishop Phillip Aspinall has promised “to keep basic principles of fairness, decency and respect for family needs at the top of our minds” as it meets MPs to discuss IR this week.

• The ACTU and the ALP won an expedited High Court hearing for their case against the Government’s IR propaganda plan, which could cost in excess of $100 000 000. The Full Court will consider the claim on 29 August. Nicola Roxon was pleased: “The court giving us a hearing date within a month of us filing the application shows that they are treating it very seriously.” Although the Democrats and Family First have not joined the case, they are trying to force the Government to have the spending brought before Parliament for consideration.

• Local governments are being asked to stand up for their communities by opposing the industrial relations package. The Gloucester Shire Council and the Tweed council are being pressed to write to the Federal Government.

• Investment bank J P Morgan predicted the IR package would lead to an increase in productivity. Apparently, its conclusion was based on New Zealand’s experience — but that doesn’t tally with the statistics. As David Peetz pointed out, “By 1998, New Zealand’s productivity was 14 per cent below what it would have been if it had kept pace with Australia. The [Employment Contracts Act] was a disaster for productivity.” Kenneth Davidson, drawing on two recents studies by the NZ Treasury, concluded that “the economic impact of the NZ reforms was plummeting productivity”.

• Sydney University’s Dr Chris Briggs says lockouts — where employees are forced out of their workplace without pay — have increased tenfold in recent years, and he places the blame squarely on the Government: “Lockouts simply would not have reappeared without Government intervention and legislative change at the federal level.” Under the proposed changes, employers will give just 3 days’ notice before a lockout, while workers will be forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops if they need to take industrial action.

• In “an attempt to reassure nervous voters”, the Government has announced it will provide more resources to the Office of Workplace Services. However, Stephen Smith dismissed the plan as irrelevant: “This is about bad policy and extreme policy, not about bad bosses.” In other words, the Office will be powerless to prevent unfair treatment that will be legal and encouraged by the Government. Labor hopes the public will see past this fig leaf.

• The Government is watering down health and safety laws so that the Commonwealth public service can cut corners and keep unions off site. The CPSU is questioning the move, because the Commonwealth OH&S system is already cheaper and safer than State systems, and has put forward a range of amendments to improve the proposed legislation. You can support their campaign here.

• Alongside the Government’s major IR overhaul, it is implementing a number of other reforms with serious ramifications for workers. For example, the Government wants to “protect” independent contractors from “interfering third parties” — including unions who represent those same contractors. This will effectively ban unions in industries like the transport industry. The TWU is concerned that “[t]he introduction of the proposed Independent Contractors Act clearly says that it will be against the law for drivers to be represented by their union.” A convoy of 500 trucks will visit Parliament House today to protest against this attack on truckies’ freedom of association.

• Template AWAs promoted by the Howard Government strip workers of paid sick leave and bereavement leave — indeed, the agreements it is promoting undercut not only the award, but the legislated minimum, too. The ACTU is concerned that “where employers force people to cash-out their sick leave they’re basically saying, ‘if something happens to you or your family, you simply don’t get paid while you deal with that crisis’.”

• Kevin Andrews yesterday suggested that the IR reforms might be referred to a Senate inquiry, although the short time-frame he hinted at is woefully inadequate. Democrats Senator Andrew Murray said it would be unreasonable if an inquiry ran shorter than February or March 2006; Andrews hoped it would be finished before the end of 2005. WA employment minister John Kobelke looks forward to the hearings: “We will certainly use that opportunity to present actual examples and factual data of how wages are lowered and people exploited under that sort of a system because we had a very similar system here in Western Australia.” John Howard is not so keen. He said, “We’re running a bit ahead of ourselves” and expressed concerns about “obstruction”.

• Despite earlier indications that the Government would back down and protect more working conditions, Kevin Andrews is standing firm: “They will remain the key features of that standard. I have no intention, or no inclination, to expand them.” Only annual leave, personal leave, parental leave and ordinary hours of work will be protected; everything else can be stripped from people’s agreements, with no safety net — and the hours of work protection is a furphy because overtime loadings can also be scrapped.

• John Howard promised that “no government I lead will hurt ordinary people” — but still he won’t guarantee that workers won’t be worse off as a result of his proposals. It’s not clear who is an “ordinary person” and who is not, for the purposes of Howard’s vague commitment, but it seems likely that those who speak out about their ill-treatment at work will be demonised.

• The ACTU has unveiled a booklet that describes how workers are treated under Howard’s current regime. It was distributed to MPs and Senators yesterday, and includes the stories of workers being sacked for raising health and safety concerns, refusing to change shifts due to family commitments, refusing to sign an inferior AWA, and asking to read an AWA before signing it. Like the unions’ television ads, these stories are effective because they occur in the workplace now, before the new plans give bosses even more power.

• A date for your diaries: “For those in Perth who want to know more about the impact on women of the IR changes, UnionsWA is holding a Women’s Community Forum on Monday 12 September at 6pm at the Loftus Community Centre.”

• The president of the WA Nationals, Wendy Duncan, says the party is wary of extreme changes to the IR system. “If the dismissal is unfair then workers should have some redress,” she said after debate at the Nationals’ WA conference. “The Nationals really are wary of too much freedom in IR policy. We have to make sure that vulnerable groups like youth and women do have the protection they need.”

• The ACTU will change tactics this week, with “workplace ambassadors” from around the country set to descend on Canberra for the next sitting week. They will lobby members of parliament as ordinary workers with serious worries about the impact of Howard’s proposals. Trevor Libbis, a father of four who works for a hardware store, is concerned that “[t]he thing that could come out of this is family meltdown.”

• In answer to a Dorothy Dixer last week, John Howard predicted that his attacks on workers’ rights would lead to a new economic boom — but he had no evidence to support his claims. By contrast, a Victorian Treasury report suggests that there is no urgent need for IR reform, and identifies changes to be made in health, infrastructure, education and training, which could reap $65 billion within ten years. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks says the Howard Government is driven by ideology, not what’s best for the economy.

• In private briefings to labour lawyers, DEWR says it hopes the Government’s legislation will pass through parliament by the end of October — an extremely ambitious goal. About 100 lawyers are currently drafting the legislation, “includ[ing] specialists seconded from firms including Freehills, Blake Dawson Waldron, Clayton Utz and Minter Ellison.”

• This week the High Court will hear legal argument about the Government’s mooted propaganda campaign. Labor and the ACTU argue there has been no valid appropriation of funds to pay for the advertisements. The Government says it didn’t follow the usual procedure because there is a “state of emergency” — an idea skewered by Richard Ackland. WA Attorney-General Jim McGinty has intervened to support the challenge. The Full Bench will hear the case on 29 August.

• The head of the backbench team hand-picked by the Prime Minister to sell his IR program, Andrew Robb, admitted, “Well, we just simply don’t know” whether workers will be worse off under the proposed system.

• Working families have won a significant case at the Industrial Relations Commission, thanks to the efforts of the union movement. New parents will now have a right to ask for up to two years unpaid parental leave, and their boss will have to genuinely consider the request. They will also be able to request part-time instead of full-time work when they return. Experts say the IRC tried to future-proof the new “family friendly” rights by linking its decision to parental leave, but Kevin Andrews won’t rule out roll-back under the new package.

• The tendering process for the Government’s mammoth IR propaganda campaign has finished and — surprise, surprise — the job has gone to Ted Horton, who has worked on Liberal Party election advertising for many years. Horton’s relationship with the Liberals is very close: “[Lib strategists] Crosby Textor, by coincidence, shares offices in Melbourne with Horton and his partner Chris Dewey in the firm Dewey Horton.” This campaign is shaping up to be blatantly political and should be paid for by the Liberal Party.

• Deputy PM Mark Vaile has again revealed his poor understanding of the Government’s IR policy. In Question Time on Tuesday, he gave a flat guarantee that public holidays, personal leave and smokos would be protected; on Wednesday, he changed his mind. His change of heart came after he was “slapped down” by the PM.

• The business lobby has been pressing for a more aggressive approach. Of protection from unfair sackings, the president of the free-market fundamentalist H R Nicholls Society says we should get rid of it “lock, stock and barrel.” Of the minimum wage, the president of the Business Council of Australia says “there’s a good argument” to scrap it altogether.

• Meanwhile, the CFMEU is preparing for the Building Industry Taskforce’s attack on Perth construction workers, with secretary Kevin Reynolds saying he is prepared to go to jail to defend his members. Despite draconian powers, the BIT has been spectacularly unsuccessful in its attempts to crush the construction unions; its prosecutions have been described by judges as “hopeless”, “without reasonable cause”, and “foreign to the workplace relations of civilised societies”, and its inspectors have been caught fabricating evidence. The Government’s solution is to give the BIT a raft of new powers that make ASIO seem like Chubb security guards.

• Democrats IR spokesperson Andrew Murray has given the strongest indication yet that his party will back Australian workers against the Howard Government: “[W]e would pretty well reject everything they are putting forward in terms of Federal Act changes. … [W]recking the Federal Act is an ideological action that will not advance the economy in the way they are asserting.”

• Family First senator Steve Fielding appears to have sniffed the wind, too, and has strongly condemned the Coalition’s subservience to market ideology. In his maiden speech, Fielding complained, “Where once the labour market respected the fact that workers had family responsibilities, today workers struggle to balance their paid work and family life. Today, sadly, what are sold as family-friendly policies are really market-friendly policies. … Imagine if workers could feel secure in their jobs and did not have to bargain for basic wages and conditions.”

• The Government might have made a significant about-face on a key element of its reform package. In an answer to a Labor question, Kevin Andrews hinted workers might keep more long service leave than his initial announcements suggested. The Age speculates that his answer represented “either a quiet decision to write the condition back into the new legislation, or a mistake on the detail” — but Andrews’ office refused to clarify the situation. They obviously have no idea what their boss is going to promise from one day to the next.

• On the subject of Question Time and slack staff, Peter Costello’s office has been sprung using Google to write the answers to his industrial relations Dorothy Dixers — inaccurately, at that.

• The Government insists that it will “preserve the right of workers to have a union negotiate a collective agreement if they wish”, but 31 Boeing workers have been on strike for 71 days because the company refuses to negotiate or bring the case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Howard told parliament Boeing was “within its rights” not to negotiate — contrary to the claims in his IR propaganda.

Update:

• A decision of the South Australian IRC demonstrates how AWAs are used to slash workers’ pay and conditions. A Bakers Delight employee was paid a wage 25% below the award, and also lost leave, overtime and other benefits. Incredibly, the Office of the Employment Advocate decided that this met the no-disadvantage test — imagine what will happen when that test is scrapped and the IRC has no power to overturn the OEA’s bad decisions?

• Catholic Cardinal George Pell and Anglican Archbishop Jensen have joined an “hallelujah chorus” against the IR reforms. Dr Jensen said the changes would “shift the differential of power in favour of employers, who can have a propensity to mistreat workers in the interests of the business.” Cardinal Pell, who had been criticised for previously refusing to speak out, said “civilised conditions” must be maintained — including lunch breaks, annual leave, long-service leave, superannuation, union access and the maintenance of quality family time. The general secretary of the National Council of Churches believes there is “a remarkable level of agreement emerging on workplace relations across the wide spectrum of Christian churches.” Kevin Rudd has picked up the ball and run with it.

• John Howard was interviewed on Insiders this morning, and revealed that he doesn’t understand his own industrial relations package. He claimed, “People will have the option … if they go to a new job, [of] either going into an award or negotiating a workplace agreement.” In fact, they will have no such choice. The boss will be able to put forward an AWA on a “take it or leave it” basis — employees will have no right to be put on the award, and they will have no right to negotiate the terms of the agreement.

• Misha Schubert picked up on another comment Howard made in his Insiders program. He said certain things would be removed from awards because they were covered by State legislation, but Schubert points out that “[i]n practice, that would mean workers who have won more generous leave entitlements would lose them.” Rather than supporting the outcomes of negotiation, Howard will force people back to the statutory minimum. He will cut long service leave and other entitlements for thousands of workers.

• Over 30 000 people turned up at a NSW protest against the IR changes (blogged at WSA Caucus). Hundreds more rallied in the Northern Territory. The ACTU expects that the public’s outrage will continue for some time, and has announced a national protest for Tuesday, 25 October. Sharran Burrow told today’s crowd in Sydney, “On October 25 you will see the biggest national protest we’ve seen in a very long time, possibly in history, when we have a community day of protests.”

• Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon announced plans to protect the working conditions of the State’s 21 000 public servants, along with 34 000 other employees. While the State legislation may not be entirely effective, it puts another barrier in the Commonwealth’s way, as they will need to challenge the law’s validity.

• Early suggestions that the Howard Government would use its postage allowance to distribute IR propaganda have proved correct. The Prime Minister posted a glossy brochure to every elector in Bennelong, and urged his colleagues to use it as a template in their own electorates. The cost of this mailout will be borne by the Australian public, on top of the more than $100 000 000 that is now expected to be spent on television, radio and newspaper advertising.

• You can get your own back by joining GetUp!’s email campaign, which, as Liberal IR hard man Andrew Robb reveals, has so far proved very effective: “There are hundreds of emails arriving in Senator’s officers. They’re beside themselves, just to clear the screen. They get back to their office from meetings looking for important communications from whoever, and they’re confronted with screen after screen of these emails, in some cases over 200 emails. This is highly irresponsible, this is spam, this is spam.” No, this is legitimate communication by the public to their elected representatives — and it’s not funded by taxpayers’ money.

• A leaked DEWR document has revealed key aspects of the Government’s coming IR propaganda blitz, including its focus on “retention of the Australian way of life.” The ACTU points out that the Australian way of life is currently supported by guaranteed minimum employment conditions, which Howard is trying to scrap. It has also been revealed that the cost of the ad campaign will probably be at least $100 000 000.

• State and Federal industrial relations ministers will meet today, to discuss the proposed reforms. Stephen Smith suggests the States will use the meeting to announce their intention to mount a High Court challenge. The Australian’s legal affairs writer Chris Merritt says the case will reveal whether the current bench is composed of “true conservatives — prepared to uphold the original intent of the founding fathers and maintain the federal-state balance”.

• Two conservative lobby groups have expressed serious concerns about the impact of Howard’s proposals on their constituencies. The National Farmers’ Federation wants its members to use the new laws to exploit their employees, but is concerned that they will have to give up lucrative tax breaks in order to do so. The tourism industry reiterated its concerns that slashing leave entitlements would devastate the domestic tourism industry: “Any move in a flat domestic market which further diminishes [annual leave] will have an impact well beyond tourism in the general economy.”

• ACTU president Sharran Burrow told a parliamentary committee on family that the Government’s proposed changes would exacerbate an already abysmal situation. She pointed out that AWAs produce family unfriendly outcomes.

• Two Queensland Government departments are threatening to force their staff to sign up to the Howard Government’s “union-busting changes to workplace conditions“. Peter Beattie says they have been “blackmailed” by threatened cuts to Commonwealth funding. Feel free to email Beattie to tell him to steel his resolve.

• A survey of 5000 young people in NSW showed that many had a poor understanding of their working rights, and were being exploited by their employers. The study found: “Half of those who thought they were in permanent work received no paid leave. Half had not received any written information about pay, hours of work or safety when they started their jobs. A quarter never got pay slips. One in seven casuals worked unpaid overtime.”

• The Hon James Macken, a retired judge of the Industrial Court of NSW, argues in New Matilda that Howard’s planned laws will “greatly strengthen the already overwhelming advantages enjoyed by employers”. He says that for many workers, “the ’suggestion’ that they might like to consider giving up half their annual leave or giving up their working conditions by going on to an AWA is equivalent to an order.”

• The latest Newspoll has Labor ahead 51-49 on a 2PP basis. ACNielsen has a 52-48 split in Labor’s favour. Steve Bracks thinks the IR campaign explains Labor’s good showing. Beazley’s wishy-washy stance on AWAs certainly makes him look indecisive, and probably explains (at least in part) why his personal approval rating didn’t increase with the party’s.

• Two articles in the latest issue of the Australian Health Review argue that John Howard’s industrial relations package will hurt health services in rural and remote areas. Pauline Stanton and Tim Bartram say there is no evidence the public health sector would be improved by the reforms, and Dr John Buchanan writes tht “[m]ost regional and rural areas … will have to rely on services staffed with fewer professionals and a growing proportion of lower skilled health workers.”

• Western Australia’s CFMEU, under concerted attack by the Howard Government despite very little evidence of wrongdoing, have been forced to rely on the unusual tactic of the “blue flu.” The name comes from American police officers who, having been banned from taking industrial action, simultaneously called in sick.

• The NSW union movement has started a Workers Radio breakfast program, which will air on 88.9 FM from 5:30am to 9am on weekdays. It is also reviewing its finances to maximise the funds available for the campaign.

• Glenn Milne is not surprised that the public has rejected the Government’s IR proposals, because “believable narratives are what always sustain governments. This is not one of them.” He says “the IR reforms look like a whim, attached to a fancy”, and the current debate is fundamentally different from the introduction of the GST, because there is no compelling case for drastic reform.

• On the other hand, Ross Gittins thinks John Howard is testing the public mood: “[W]henever the unions manage to incite talkback radio’s indignation on another aspect, he’ll back off another notch.” But he warns that if Howard starts to back down, it will build the unions’ momentum so that “[t]heir ad campaign — backed up by a lot of word-of-mouth in the workplace — may yet go down as the most successful opposition to a government policy proposal in a long time.”

• Another event for Sydneysiders. The Business and Labour History Group at the University of Sydney is holding a symposium on the state industrial relations systems on Friday, 26 August.

• Justice Heydon Dyson refused an interlocutory injunction against the Government’s IR campaign, because the unions could not give an undertaking as to damages (because the cost of the ad campaign is undisclosed, but tipped to be at least $20 000 000). However, Justice Dyson agreed that the constitutionality of the propaganda expenditure was “a serious question to be tried,” and the Full Bench will hear the matter next week. If the Government continues to argue that the ACTU’s public relations campaign have created “an emergency situation” (!), next week’s hearings should be entertaining.

• As Kim Beazley pointed out that even toilet breaks are on the chopping block and the RSL said Anzac Day as a paid public holiday was “non-negotiable”, the Government became very confused about what its reforms actually mean. Mark Vaile “appeared to expand the new minimum working conditions from four to seven” (which wouldn’t be the first time he’s got it wrong). John Howard also claimed public holidays would be safe, saying, “We will preserve all the protections that are there now.” These are weasel words — he means public holidays will stay in awards, but because the no-disadvantage test is going to be scrapped, public holidays can be excluded on the AWAs Howard will aggressively promote.

• Dirt unit mastermind Mr Hanke is hunkering down in his new job with Kevin Andrews. They attempted to smear Kim Beazley by saying his staff were employed on AWAs — but Beazley’s staff are employed by the Department of Finance and Administration, not their political boss. DOFA sent the advisors a letter demanding they sign an AWA: “Until we receive the original signed and duly completed Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) and Filing Application Form, you will be paid a lower non-AWA salary and Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA).” The non-AWA salary is 30-40% lower — and these inflated managerial AWAs are used by Howard to fiddle the figures in his propaganda.

• In a strange op-ed for the Australian Financial Review (Friday, p27), Greg Craven suggested that widespread opposition to the proposed reforms is not because people are worried about their wages and job security, but because they are all committed States-rights conservatives: “Given a choice between the states and the HR Nicholls Society, theychoose the states, and do so with a pungent determination.” I think he’s overstated the size of that constituency, but his conclusion is spot on. He says that if the view that Howard has a profoundly radical agenda “ever comes to be the accepted wisdom Howard will face serious problems. … Honest John sounds a lot better than Radical Jack.”

• Please email Kim Beazley to tell him now is not the time to go soft on industrial relations.

• Kevin Andrews yesterday explained meal breaks and public holidays would still be a “feature” of employment, but would not be guaranteed. Steve Fielding was not convinced: “The average Australian won’t accept the idea that people could be required to work seven days a week and not get a meal break … [a]nd they won’t accept not being guaranteed pay for taking a public holiday.” Barnaby Joyce was also unimpressed, saying, “You’d have no chance of pushing that donkey around the yard.”

• The Canberra Times thinks the Government will respond to the union campaign by talking up its economic record, but isn’t convinced that strategy will work: “[W]hile most voters might intellectually appreciate the Government’s claim, the evidence is that this prosperity has not greatly enhanced feelings of job security, bargaining equality in the workplace, or confidence in the calibre or goodwill of management.” The paper notes that “a union campaign focused on that real sense of insecurity can hardly be said to be fundamentally dishonest.”

• Builders in Victoria are concerned that the Government is deliberately sabotaging the industry to push its anti-union political agenda. One senior executive of an international building company told The Australian, ” hate to say this, but I feel it is almost as if the Government wants to create problems on building sites and then use them as a reason to further its agenda.” According to new rules, the Government must decide whether EBAs comply with a new code of conduct, but this process is causing unusual delays.

• Last week lawyers representing Labor and the unions wrote to Kevin Andrews demanding answers about his advertising budget (pdf). The deadline having expired without a response, they have filed for an injunction against the propaganda campaign in the High Court, on the grounds that the $20 000 000 propaganda campaign was not accounted for in the budget. “We think that John Howard is spending taxpayers’ money illegally and we want it stopped,” said Nicola Roxon.

• Kevin Andrews’ staff want your support for their current employment negotiations.

• Pre-eminent labour lawyer Josh Bornstein argues (as I have) that far from being a plan for the 21st Century, the Government’s proposals will return us to the situation that prevailed in the 1800s. He explains that “freedom of contract” is based on a fictional equality between employer and employee:

  In very few cases employees actually bargain over their contract of employment, because in very few cases do they have real bargaining power. … In many workplaces, this inequality of bargaining power is illustrated by the existence of identical contracts of employment signed by employees. Sceptics are invited to ask Telstra for copies of the AWAs it has with its call centre employees. The fundamental problem with these contracts is that they are pro-forma “agreements” created by the employer and unilaterally imposed on its employees.

  In other words, it’s not about flexible, individual agreements at all. It’s about stripping employees of their bargaining power by making it hard for them to support each other in negotiations.

• Michelle Grattan says Peter Costello’s “unfair dismissals for all” comment “could hardly have been accidental — the transcript was signed off by his office”, and wonders whether it was a smart tactical decision (outside his leadership jockeying). She points to yet another poll that reveals Australians overwhelmingly oppose the unfair dismissal plan.

• There’s another voter who was certainly annoyed by Costello’s policy announcement — Barnaby Joyce, whose vote in the Senate will be crucial. He doesn’t like scrapping unfair dismissal laws for big companies because “[o]ne day you’ll turn up for work and get sacked because some middle manager doesn’t like the look on your face.” Joyce says it’s hard enough to support an exemption for companies with 100 employees, let alone scrapping workers’ protection altogether.

• If Joyce decides to stand up for Queensland, the Government will have to look elsewhere for support. Fortunately, Family First’s Stephen Fielding has given an early indication that he won’t support the proposals:

  I think workers and their families will be surprised and shocked to learn the Government intends to remove the guarantee that these workers will be paid on public holidays. Workers will not accept the idea that lunch breaks may not be guaranteed.

• Legal experts think the Government’s draft legislation is too complex, and won’t be ready until next year. Kevin Andrews says it will be introduced to parliament in September or October.

• Father Tony Percy explains how even tertiary-educated workers have difficulty negotiating on a genuinely equal footing with their employers: “A worker enters the room to negotiate a contract. His employers place on the desk a contract, which has been prepared by the legal department of the employer. Immediately we sense the problem. The employee has absolutely no clues about the subtlety of the contract he is signing. The employer does — his legal section or his employer group or association has had ample time to prepare it.” Online Opinion refers to Father Percy’s theology degree, but for some reason the editor removed a reference to his B Comm (Hons), which is far more pertinent to this piece.

• Labor MP Justine Elliot argues that pensioners will be adversely affected by the Government’s IR reforms. Many pensions are indexed to average weekly earnings, the growth of which will slow under the new regime.

• The National Party’s Queensland state conference will be held this Friday, and it will decide whether to support the Howard Government’s attempt to strip the States of their industrial relations powers. Laurence Springborg believes the conference will oppose the reforms, but says the results of such votes are “notoriously hard to predict.” Maverick Senator Barnaby Joyce will take the conference decision into account when deciding whether to cross the floor against the package.

• Brisvegan bloggers Mark Bahnisch and John Quiggin have collaborated on a column about the IR proposals. They conclude: “The reforms proposed by the Howard government will tilt the balance strongly in favour of employers. The likely outcome is a substantial increase in inequality of incomes, and in day-to-day relationships within the workplace.”

• The Liberal Party’s federal council recently voted against the IR reforms and in favour of States’ rights. Glenn Milne attributes this to the malign influence of Noel Crichton-Browne, though NCB disputes this and says Milne was badly briefed by Julie Bishop. But it Milne is right, then what do we make of his claim that Sophie Panopoulos worked hard behind the scenes to get the States’ rights vote up? (And according to Milne, she doesn’t deny involvement.) Howard put her in the Babysitters Club to supervise Kevin Andrews in selling the reforms — not to sabotage them.

• Peter Costello has revealed that the Government’s IR plans are even bigger than those they have publicly announced. Costello says making unfair treatment of employees in small and medium businesses is the thin end of the wedge — he is “very open to the idea” that “in the years to come it should be extended to all companies.” Stephen Smith says the PM and his Treasurer are “competing on who could have the most extreme view on industrial relations.”

• Business lobbyist Mark Bethwaite is peddling lies about the current unfair dismissal regime. He says:

  Many [claims] relate to employees sacked for crimes against their employer, theft in particular. It is simply unacceptable that the courts should require employers to make unfair dismissal payouts to such employees because the required termination process, such as three written warnings, was not followed to the letter.

  They don’t. The boss must make a reasonable effort to investigate the theft, give a reason for the termination, and give the employee an opportunity to respond (for example, by showing that they didn’t steal anything) — hardly an onerous burden when weighed against the injustice of sacking an innocent person. There is no need for three written warnings. Theft may be regarded as “serious misconduct” for the purposes of the Workplace Relations Act, which means that summary dismissal (without notice or a payout) is allowed.