Paddy Gorman with Gerry Adams |
The CFMEU Mining and Energy Division national media officer is also New South Wales President of Australian Aid for Ireland. He has been a high profile and leading supporter of Sinn Fein's peace strategy and the resolution of conflict in Ireland through political means. He has also been a constant advocate of breaking down sectarian barriers between the nationalist and loyalist communities through the development of an unbiased understanding of the history of conflict in Ireland and the common interests shared by both communities in the future development and prosperity of a united Ireland.
Last week he was contacted by ASIO officers who told him that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had informed ASIO that a well-known loyalist had been found in possession of a list. Paddy's name was on that list.
In response to questions by Paddy, the ASIO officers advised him that no other Australian was on the list. However, people from other countries, apart from Australia and Ireland, are understood to be on the list.
Despite this, Gorman, an Australian citizen, is still trying to get full details of the list. He wants to know when the RUC became aware of it; the details contained about him on the list, what the RUC has done about this discovery and whether anyone haqs been charged in relation to the list.
Gorman's lawyers have now twice written to the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, to pursue these questions but so far there has been no reply.
Gorman has told Workers Online he's disgusted by the tardy response from the Howard Government. "It's outrageous when the Australia soccer team were abused on their arrival in Uruaguay, Downer carpeted the Uruaguyan Ambassador immediately. Yet, while ASIO inform me that I'm on a loyalist paramilitary hit list, there is no response".
Gorman said that he was treating the threat as very serious. "The RUC thought they were serious enough to pass them on to ASIO and ASIO obviously believed they were serious enough to inform me about them", he said.
The story has been picked up in the Australian media with ABC TV's Lateline running it with an interview with Gorman and Labor MP Paul Lynch. The elecronic media and the press have also run the story nationally.
Addressing NSW Parliament on the issue this week, MLA Paul Lynch said the last recorded assassination attempt in Australia involving republicans or loyalists was in 1868.
"There is no history of violence at all in Australia by either republican or loyalist traditions," Lynch said. "Indeed, both traditions have recently had significant figures visit Australia quite openly, including Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and David Ervine. "
"Not only has no violence been associated with these visits, there have not even been any demonstrations. "In my view, in Australia both traditions respect and cherish Australian principles of tolerance, despite their passionate commitments to their traditions. I believe that there is widespread support within both communities for the Good Friday Peace Agreement."
Paddy Gorman has the full support of his Union and says he has been inundated with calls from colleagues in other unions and the community in support of him.
The workers at the Westpac Haymarket branch were involved in the hold-up at about 3pm Thursday - some nine hours before State Parliament passed the legislation.
But with a clause making the laws retrospective to last Monday, any workers seeking compensation from the hold-up will have to go through the new system.
The Finance Sector Union's Geoff Derrick says if the workers claim for psychological damage - a common affliction of workers involved in armed hold-ups - they will be subject to new untested assessment guidelines.
These guides attempt to judge psychiatric and psychological damage as a percentage of whole capacity, with a 15 per cent threshold to access benefits or access to the courts.
The Labor Council has been critical of the new guidelines, saying workers with psychiatric and psychological injury will be treated like 'guinea pigs and lab rats".
'Treachery' on Psychiatric Damage
Labor Council secretary John Robertson has accused key government negotiators of 'treachery' after they pressured cross-bench MPs to reject amendments to the psychiatric and psychological assessment.
A number of cross-benchers had agreed to move the amendments after meeting with union representatives of police officers and bank workers.
But negotiators for NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca told Nile them the entire workers compensation package would 'be damaged' if the psych and psych provisions were altered.
Robertson says the line was an outrageous distortion and called on Della Bosca to distance himself from the comments of McDonlald and his staffer.
Ongoing Monitoring
While the workers compensation changes are now law, unions are maintaining the battle is far from over and will begin a monitoring campaign to highlight the impact of the changes.
The Labor Council will be running advertisements in metro and regional newspapers over the coming week to report back to members on the changes.
Robertson says the campaign did force the government to improve their original package in important ways, including:
- increased the maximum level of lump sum compensation payments from $175,000 to $250,000.
- reduced the threshold to sue a negligent employer from 25 per cent to 15 per cent.
- ensured that you will have legal representation and right of appeal if you have a workplace accident.
- made them change the medical guidelines against which your injury will be assessed and
- repealed laws to allow the government to privatise WorkCover.
But he maintains the package remain unacceptable to the union movement, which will monitor the impact of the changes and publicise cases of injustice.
If you know someone who is worse off let us know
mailto:[email protected]
New Labor IR spokesman Robert McClelland says the proposal to use corporations power to override state industrial laws is in the small-print of the Coalition election policy.
Abbott has signalled the assault on unfair dismissal rights for employees in small businesses will be a cornerstone of his next wave of IR deregulation.
The Labor Opposition has signalled it will oppose the bill, despite the Howard Government's latest attempt to use the issue to drive a wedge between Labor and the unions.
SDA state secretary Greg Donnelly is leading the charge against the laws amongst unions and wants new Opposition leader Simon Crean to state he will oppose the changes outright.
"The underlying principle is clear and I would have thought generally accepted in our society," Donnelly says, "Asn injustice is and injustice no matter how large or small the employer."
NSW Labor Council secretary John Robertson says the attempt to override state law is the sting in the tail to the proposal.
"We have always worked to protect the integrity of the state industrial system and it will take more than a constitutional swiftie for Abbott to get his hands on NSW," Robertson says.
The IPMG Group has announced they are considering closing their Hannanprint plant in Dubbo - which employs some 200 workers.
The closure is part of a mooted merger with PNP - a move which would create a dominant player in media printing.
AMWU Printing Division secretary Amanda Perkins says the company has been trying to get the Dubbo workers to accept a 'save Dubbo plan' that would involve drastic cuts to wages and conditions.
But the workers have unanimously refused to accept the company plan for the four per cent pay cut for this year, a wage freeze next year and a 50 per cent reduction in shift and penalty rates.
Perkins says the workers have shown significant courage in refusing nto hack their conditions, "they recognise that if the company can not pay them a decent wage, then they are not a long-term viable proposition."
Labor Staffers! Click here to join your union. |
Public Service Association general secretary Maurie O'Sullivan has written to NSW ALP general secretary Eric Roozendaal over the number of people in plum Labor jobs who aren't in the union.
"It infuriates me to see those people take advantage of Labor Party positions and yet defy the Labor Party rule which tells them to join the relevant trade union," O'Sullivan says.
"Indeed, I am so pissed off that I intend gradually to 'out' them."
In his letter, O'Sullivan calls on Roozendaal to canavs the issue amongst Labor members "and advise the transgressors that they have palced their membership in jeopardy."
"It simply sickens me to see people capitalise on the Labor Party and at the same time piss on the trade union movement."
Review of Industrial Laws Looms
Meanwhile, NSW unions will have a chance to formulate their pre-election claims for industrial relations reform via a statutory review of the state's industrial laws.
The five-year review of the NSW Industrial Relations Act is a condition of the laws, with the government to report back to the Parliament by June 2002.
Labor Council secretary John Robertson says unions will developed a united position for the review, which will deal with both technical and substantive issues.
"We want to make sure the laws are working smoothly, but we also want to see some movement on outstanding issues like labour hire, workplace surveillance and casual workers," Robertson says. The deadline for submissions is mid-December.
Tension has been in the air between the industrial and political wings of the labour movement since the election but this week's appearance at the ACTU Executive by Simon Crean and his new IR spokesperson Robert McLellan did much to put the debate back on track.
Union leaders told the pair that the relationship between unions and the ALP should not be defined by a narrow focus on ALP rules specifically the 60:40 rule.
'In our view it should be based on beliefs and values and shared objectives for justice and fairness in society,' said ACTU Secretary Greg Combet.
'Our message to Simon Crean is that we want a strong, robust relationship with the ALP which respects the independent role of the unions but which is based on shared beliefs. Those with another view don't understand unions. They haven't taken the time to inform themselves about how unions are changing and don't understand that unions have embarked on a drastic change over the last few years.'
'What's not clear to me is what critics of the unions relationship with the ALP actually want to achieve in terms of change in society. So far that focus seems to be narrow on organisational change in the ALP rather than the broader policy picture. It's not clear if their objective is to clear the way for the best possible candidates. They should say what their end game is and they might find they have common ground with us.'
Greg Combet says it is ludicrous to suggest that unions are somehow to blame for the ALP's election loss.
'That is something that unions completely repudiate because there is no iota of evidence to support it. I invite any ALP figure who thinks that to come and see what unions are doing and what our own processes of change have been over the last few years.'
While a post mortem of the election and the relationship with the ALP hogged the headlines there were other significant initiatives flagged at the executive including the likelihood of test cases in the coming months to improve the rights of casuals and to safeguard redundancy entitlements.
'We've decided to focus on improving rights of casual workers - specifically to extend the 25% loading to more awards and the right to convert to permanent employment if in effect the casual is really a permanent worker,' said Greg Combet. 'Also, in an environment with so many collapses, closures and redundancies we're going to lift the redundancy safety net in awards.'
The executive also decided to take unions @ work a step further by approving the allocation of up to $1 million into a union eduction fund that will be used to increase the skills of activists and delegates in organising, campaigning and bargaining. The ACTU is prepared to draw upon its reserves to kick start the delivery of programs but will also look to support from state TLCs and from governments.
The $1 million funding commitment for the new Union Education Foundation was approved by the ACTU Executive meeting in Melbourne this week. The Foundation will focus on improving the organising, campaigning and negotiating skills of workplace delegates.
The Executive also affirmed the ACTU's priority agenda for 2002, including improved job security for casual workers, better award redundancy rights, paid maternity leave and equal pay for women, higher minimum wages and family-friendly working hours.
"The establishment of The Union Education Foundation reflects the ongoing commitment of unions to adapting to the changing demands of Australian workplaces," ACTU President Sharan Burrow said.
"The Foundation will build on the successes of the ACTU Organising Centre and aims to establish training centres in every State to develop a strong organisational base for future union growth. The Foundation represents the ongoing commitment of the ACTU to the 1999 unions@work report.
"The ACTU is determined to continue delivering better living standards for the growing number of part-time and casual employees, low-paid workers, and people struggling to balance work and family demands, especially women," Ms Burrow said.
Latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures in March showed union membership increased last year for the first time in over a decade, rising by 1.3% after a 4.2% jump in the number of women union members.
Unions planned to improve award conditions for casual workers by increasing the casual leave loading to 25% and giving casuals the right to become permanent after a minimum period of regular employment.
Call centres and education unions were the big winners. Melissa Webster of the ASU Central and Southern Queensland Clerical and Administrative Branch was named Organiser of the Year. Melissa implemented a call centre campaign that resulted in the recruitment of over three hundred new members. Leonie Saunders of AAPT in Bendigo and CPSU Communications Section member was awarded the Delegate of the Year award for her success in recruiting over seventy members during a five-month period. Both of these women were rewarded for their commitment and dedication to improving labour standards in the burgeoning call centre industry.
The NTEU and AEU were joint winners of the category Best Communications Strategy for their federal election campaigns. Both unions were acknowledged for using campaign tactics including training, website and community polling to make education a prominent issue in an election year.
Best Workplace Campaign was awarded to the LHMU WA Branch for its Linencare campaign in which members of a hospital laundry service fought for comparable working conditions for casuals and permanent staff.
Graham Bird's emotional affirmation of the resilience shown by AMIEU members during the G.J. O'Connor meat workers' dispute earned him Best Media Quote.
The Jennie George Award for contributions to the advancement of women in unions was awarded to the Women's Standing Committee of the UTLC SA for its administration of the Anna Stewart Memorial Project. When receiving the award Michelle Hogan, UTLC Assistant Secretary said the project exposed women to union activities and allowed them to be more involved in their unions. She urged unions not already participating in the project, which is national and delivered in most states, to do so.
The ACTU also saluted the resolve of Ansett workers in maintaining the issue's prominence in recent weeks.
"There are no guarantees but thanks to the people you see in front of you it is fairly safe to assume that in the event of job losses through redundancies that members will receive every cent of their full entitlements," said ACTU Secretary, Greg Combet.
Special guests of the evening included Gough Whitlam, Deputy Leader and Opposition Spokesperson for Employment, Education, Training and Science, Jenny Macklin and Opposition Spokesperson for Industrial Relations, Robert McLelland. Comedian Rod Quantok hosted the evening.
The workers, members of the Finance Sector Union, have begun collecting proxies from shareholders so they can attend the Annual General Meetings to raise issues about staff conditions and customer service from the floor.
Workers have voted to stop work and hold rallies outside the Westpac and NAB AGMs in Sydney and Melbourne on December 13 and the ANZ AGM the following day.
FSU state secretary Geoff Derrick says the time has come to draw a line in the sand for workers and customers.
"These three banks have declared in excess of $6 billion profit from their Australian operations in the past year and each has awarded their executives and directors very large rewards in the form of salary, bonuses and share options," Derrick says.
In recent days it had been revealed that three NAB executive had returned to the USA with $10 million bonuses despite presiding over the $4 billion Homeside debacle.
It was just the latest act of hypocrisy amongst the Big Four banks, who routinely award CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses while cutting back on staff and services.
To register your proxy support go to:
ASU state secretary Michael Want has made the call for gender balance after Transport Minister Carl Scully's recent decision to grant the concessions for apprentices.
Want says workers employed as 'trainees' in female-dominated industries such as clerical, retail and hospitality earn similar wages to the trade apprentices.
"The Union is of the firm view that there should be no difference between apprentic4es and trainees if their incomes are similar," Want says.
"Trainees incomes are white-anted because they have to pay full fare to attend work and training. Like their counterparts that would welcome the up to $1000 of their hard wages back in their pockets."
The Labor Council has resolved to will make a representation to Scully to extend the concession to trainees.
by Phil Davey
The spectacular collapse of a building in Camperdown on the weekend, which caused traffic chaos, together with the death of a man last week when a wall collapsed in Canterbury, were not coincidences say the Union.
In both instances, CFMEU safety experts had visited the sites just days before the accident, issuing safety rectification notices to no avail.
At the Canterbury site, CFMEU officials counselled a contractor on safety problems on site.
72 hours later the same boss was dead. At Camperdown, a CFMEU official again issued safety notices just days before the accident. For his trouble the official was threatened by management. Days later that very same site collapsed.
CFMEU officials at Camperdown today have shut down another four building sites within 200 metres of the accident site, finding significant safety problems on all four.
CFMEU Safety Co-ordinator Brian Miller believes a rush to finish work for Christmas is the cause of the deteriorating safety situation and the spate of recent accidents.
"Corners are being cut by shonky builders all over Sydney at the moment. I am very concerned that this spate of accidents will continue unless state and local Government and the public at large report and police the shonks who are putting peoples lives at risk."
Negotiations between the union and the company, for the first national Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, is expected to start next week, with the union's number one claim a wage increase of 7.5% per annum from December 1, 2001.
" All LHMU members have been involved in a national consultation process in the development of our extensive log of claims, with balloting on the key issues in the log completed this week," Tim Ferrari, LHMU Assistant National Secretary said today.
"We believe our claim is moderate and the recently appointed Goodman Fielder CEO, Tom Park, who last year earned $7.8 million at Southcorp, including a $3 million severance payout, should be able to come up with a fair and decent offer for the workers and their union.
" In a covering letter to the company the LHMU has asked for an initial meeting so that we can agree on a process for negotiations and schedule a timetable for talks.
Negotiating team
" The LHMU members will be represented by a negotiating team of delegates, branch and national officials.
" The negotiating team is hoping for a result from these talks by Xmas.
" Until now, enterprise agreements at Goodman Fielder have been covered by State and Territory agreements.
" Delegates, organisers and LHMU officers from all States and Territories got together in September to look at issues affecting the Goodman Fielder workplaces and what can be done to improve the situation.
'All decided it was time to negotiate the first Goodman Fielder National Agreement."
Recently, 6000 tonnes of concrete contaminated with asbestos cement was found at a recycling depot. This kind of situation presents a serious health risk to workers.
The WMAA has proposed that an industry code of practice be developed for the handling of asbestos at recycling depots.
The process will include the CFMEU and other Unions as well as Workcover, the EPA, the Health Department and industry bodies.
Welcoming the WMAA proposal, CFMEU State Secretary Andrew Ferguson said that it was gratifying that the Unions campaign was achieving results.
"Asbestos has killed thousands of our members. We have run a campaign for many years to have asbestos banned from building sites, which has been very successful.
It's great to see that workers handling asbestos at recycling depots will be able to access clear procedures through a code of practice. We commend the WMAA on this initiative."
The ACTU Organising Centre, the Labor Council of NSW and nine NSW unions are conducting the program.
This provides students, union members & community activists with the opportunity to spend three weeks interning in a union, working on organising campaigns. Interns work alongside experienced organisers, get paid a stipend and receive formal training. The program runs from 28 January-15 February. Applications close 8
December.
Do you know anyone who might be interested in applying for Union Summer? We are not advertising widely as there are limited places but if you know of particularly talented, committed people then please pass it on to them. More info and application form below.
Union Summer
Union Summer gives people committed to social justice the opportunity to do an educational internship, working in trade unions with organisers and union activists. Union Summer aims to encourage participants to become activists in their workplaces or universities, to identify potential union organisers and support workers organising campaigns in strategic sites and industries.
What is the internship?
Union Summer interns will be 'matched up' with one of nine unions participating in the program and spend three weeks working with a skilled, experienced organiser on an organising project. The program runs full-time in Sydney from 30 January-16 February 2001. All interns come together during the program for formal training on campaigning and organising in a union context. Interns receive a $220 per week net stipend plus your travel expenses going out to workplaces. Hours are variable, depending on what industry you are organising. It is interesting, rewarding and hard work.
What would you be doing?
Interns in each union would work with organisers in current campaigns.
Potential activities include-
- surveying workers, visiting workplaces and talking to workers about their concerns
- working with union delegates and workplace activists
- supporting workers in collective activity such as rallies and protests
- employer research and workforce analysis in potential sites for organising
Where did Union Summer come from?
In 1996 American unions first ran a Union Summer, asking students and community activists to help organise workplaces. It was a great success, helping organising campaigns and producing skilled and committed activists. Union Summer also kickstarted the anti-sweatshop movement in American universities. We borrowed the concept with a pilot Union Summer program in NSW in 2001. Twenty interns in six unions worked on campaigns including in call centres, furniture factories, transport yards, hospitals and hotels.
Who are we?
The ACTU Organising Centre is a division of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We work with unions on organising campaigns for areas with low union membership, supporting working people in building power in their workplaces and developing strategies for dealing with a hostile environment.
How to apply
Fill in the information below and send it to 'Union Summer', ACTU Organising Centre, Level 7, 377-383 Sussex Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000(fax 02 9283 4132) by Friday 8th December or e-mail to [email protected]. Applications close 8 December. For more information contact Nadine Flood or Cathy Bloch, ACTU
Organising Centre on 02 9264 9744 or Nadine on 0407 731 330.
Limited places are available and entry to Union Summer is competitive. Group interviews for shortlisted applicants will be held on Thursday 13 December at the Ground Floor Training Room. Labor Council of NSW, 377 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000. Applicants will be notified of a time for interview by telephone or e-mail. Please keep a copy of your application.
Personal details
Please provide the following details; Name, Address, Postcode, Age, Male/Female
Work phone, Home phone, Mobile, E-mail Any languages you speak other than English
Work experience/education
List the main jobs you have held and any courses you have undertaken.
Include the name of the employer, the job you did, the date and whether you were full time, part time or casual. For course, please list the school, college or university, the course name, the date and and whether you were full time, part time or casual.
Trade union/community involvement (if applicable)
Please list any involvement you have had in a trade union, environment group, student union, political party, women's group or other organisation. Include the name of the union/organisation, your role, the employer/campus (if applicable) and the dates you were involved.
Question 1. Briefly outline your experience in organising, whether for a trade union,
community or other organisation.
Question 2. What do you understand to be the aims and values of the trade union movement?
Question 3. Explain why you want to participate in UNION SUMMER and what makes you suited to be an intern in this program.
Question 4. Is there a particular industry or union you would like to intern in? (We can't guarantee to meet your preference).
Good luck!
The paid parental leave will be available to about two thirds of working mothers who will have babies or adopt.
About a third of working women are either self-employed or do not meet the eligibility criteria and are thus not covered, although they will still be covered by NZ's parental tax credit scheme.
The paid parental leave will be paid by the Government, with about 20,000 women will benefit each year. Eligible women will receive a maximum of $325 gross per week, which is about $257 in hand after tax (based on the 21% rate). The $325 is about 53% of average weekly earnings.
Those who earn less than $325 gross will get 100% of their pay rate - about a third of eligible women. Another 15-20% will get 80% or more.
The scheme will cost the NZ Government about $42 million per year, which is
not about to break the bank. The eligibility criteria is 10 hours work per week for a year with a single employer.
The payments can be shared between eligible partners, including those in same-sex relationships.
The criticisms of the scheme are that it does not meet the 14 week paid leave standard promoted by the International Labour Organisation, that the $325 maximum is too low, and that it should be extended to the self-employed and other ineligibles (it appears the Government does see extension as a next stage).
UK Also Improves Its Parental Leave
Meanwhile, the Employment Bill currently before the UK Parliament improves paternity and maternity leave.
From 2003 paternity leave will be two weeks paid leave at 100 pounds per week or 90% of earnings, whichever is less. The qualifying period is effectively 40 weeks employment prior to birth.
Adoption leave is to be introduced, with 26 paid weeks and 26 unpaid. The pay rate is the 100 pounds/90% of earnings formula.
Maternity leave will become 26 weeks paid and 26 weeks unpaid. The pay rate will be 90% of earnings for 6 weeks followed by 20 weeks at 100 pounds. The qualification period is effectively 40 weeks.
These parental leaves are administered by employers. That is employers pay the leave and reclaim from Government. Large employers can claim 92% of the cost (i.e. they make a small contribution) and small employers can claim 105% (i.e. the Govt pays them an administration fee).
The Blair Labour Government will also introduce some rights for parents of young children to ask for shorter hours. However they have steered away from establishing a right to flexitime.
Labor Council has put up $2000 to go towards air travel for the winner of the organiser of the year competition, which will be awarded at the executive dinner in early December.
To enter, just write 500-800 words about an experience where you've put the principles of organising into practise. Send it to Workers Online via the button below.
Entries received by December 2 will be judged by our panel of experts, with finalists announced prior to the dinner.
Previous winners are the Transport Workers Union's Bruce Penton and the Police Association's Bob Morgan.
For further details contact Peter Lewis on 9264 1691 or mailto:[email protected]
********************
REFUGEE RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
Speakers; Doug Cameron, National Secretary AMWU, Salbatore Scevole Ethnic Communities Council, Thang Ngo, Failfield Councillor and Unity Spokesperson, Mas Lane,
Action in solidarity with Asia-Pacific
MONDAY 3 DEC, 7PM
Granville Town Hall
Carlton St Granville
Organised by Free the Refugees Campaign
*****************
Book Launch
'Together With Us' a personal glimpse of the Eureka Youth League, 1920 -1970 will be launched on the 9th February, at 2.30 pm Writer's Centre, Callen Park, Rozelle.
Drinks and nibbles plus old friends will be provided. Enter opposite Cecily St and follow signs. Copies of the book, 264 pp + 20 photographs at $25.00+ packing & postage can be obtained from Barrie Blears, 23 Mount St, Leura, 2780.
Cheques and money orders only. Available February. The EYL had a long history of association with the Trade Union movement.
Barrie Blears.
*************
An evening with John Pilger
8:00pm Friday 14 December
Valhalla Cinema, 166 Glebe Point Rd, Glebe
Contact: Action in solidarity with the Asian Pacific.
9690 1032 or 1800 634 206
www.asiet.org.au
Totally Futile
You use the word "disrepair" of branch structure. Surely you mean "disregard"
The experience of so many true believers is the utter futility of advancing any thought or policy initiative at branch level.
Ben Haneman (Double Bay Branch)
******************
Tired Old Argument
Tom Collins (Letter - 23/11) is right about one thing, union members and workers generally have fled the Labor Party in droves. This is fact, however once again we have the same tired analysis of Trade Union affiliation to the ALP. The argument from Tom (and many within the ALP) seems to be that if union membership is falling, and union members are not all voting for the ALP then why is the ALP pandering to these special interest groups?
1. Why have workers deserted the ALP (and unions to a lesser extent)?
The answer is obvious: the political wing of the working class (ALP) has failed the working class. So too have elements of the industrial wing (Trade Unions). Why? Because ruling cliques in Trade Unions, ALP factions and Parliamentary Caucuses have made internal democracy a joke in these organisations. The failure of the labour movement to respond to the growing power of the employing class stems from its own internal contradictions. Sure we can (and should) blame structural change, the growth of the new economy, growth in part-time employment, casualisation etc, but the real problem is the pandering of the labour movement to special interest groups, although not the ones Tom Collins has in mind.
The ALP is clearly a pro-big business party like the Liberals and Nationals. They justify this position based on an assumption that we cannot change the nature of the global economy but we can 'civilise' capital. What a joke, when has 'capital' ever been civilised. We still have child labour in this and every country in the world. It is clear that what the ALP is looking for is a US Democrats option where they are free to move around the political spectrum for short-term advantage. In similar style ALP fundraising relies on networking with the big end of town, begging bowl in hand so that the workers 'representatives' can be elected to a seat in Parliament and then report solemnly to their sheep that they would like to do more but the budget must stay in surplus (because the economic masters tell us this is so), or that mutual obligation is latest idea (because why should hardworking taxpayers expect any help in a time of need from government). The real special interest grou!
p is the same as always, the rich and powerful.
2. 60/40 rule.
The argument to reduce union influence in the ALP is a nonsense simply because lack of internal democracy in the ALP (and some unions) means that members and delegates can pass all the motions they like, but our own 'leaders' will work out what is best for us anyway. Even if unions had 100% control of ALP conference it would make zero difference to actual public policy, look at the anti-worker Carr government for an example.
The whole point is that workers are being divided upon the basis of competing ideologies in the social sphere (refugees, work for the dole, the Republic, Indigenous rights, the environment etc) when the labour movement should be uniting them - upon their class interests. There is not one worker in urban or regional NSW (despite their varied opinions about the above social issues) who would disagree that the employing class are growing more powerful and the average worker can look forward to a lifetime of low wages and job insecurity, whether here or any country in the world. As history shows, people can be mislead by simplistic political solutions (fascism, racism, One Nation etc) when times are tough but can also unite on their class interests. You will not convince workers that they should support refugees because it is racist not to, you will convince them because their class interests (i.e. their economic interests) depend on the solidarity of workers regardless of race, gender etc.
This is understood by the employing class who come from all corners of the world, all religions but have an unspoken understanding of their collective interest, and manage to work together through the IMF and other global institutions for mutual gain. The facts of modern industry remain: a small gang of exploiters run industry to their benefit, while those who create the wealth compete globally for the lowest wages, with the unemployed used as a source of cheap labour. Until workers are organised into unions with rank & file control, and militant organising approaches, until residents in communities are organised into political movements which are run democratically and not by a few cronies, the situation will continue, and future Labor Governments will achieve lurks and perks for themselves and sadly report to their supporters that nothing can be done about the massive economic forces that are creating the world's first global dictatorship based on wealth and power.
John Howard's greatest achievement was fooling workers (who already know that a small elite controls society) into believing that the elite consists of progressive people (on social issues) instead of the Packers and Murdochs of the world. But it was no great hurdle when the labour movement does not try to organise on our common class interests as workers and instead plays the cards dealt by our economic masters: we don't have to accept the status quo, but our 'leaders' in the labour movement have no desire to upset this cozy arrangement, Michael Costa got his reward for the backroom deals to sell-out injured workers on workers compensation.
Adam Lincoln.
*********************
Victim Mentality
Isn't it about time that we stopped being victim to the Howard government's campaign against unions led by the likes of Reith and now Abbott? Isn't it about time that we or indeed our federal labor representatives argued for the union movement? Or is it that they just don't believe in the principles in which the party was founded? Is it simply that they just don't believe? Is it simply that they are not proud to be union members?
Wasn't one of the reasons that Labor lost this election was that it couldn't demonstrate to people that it was passionate about particular issues, that our representatives had made up their collective mind about something and actually believed in it and were passionate about it and in turn could inspire some passion amonst Australians.
You must take a position on issues. Sooner or later, you must make a stand. You respect someone for doing that. Rightly or wrongly, Howard took a position and communicated his stance. It won him a lot of votes. People could see he believed in what he spoke and did. only when he attacked Beazley in the debate and he defended himself and stated his position did the worm turn. Too late.
I believe in unions and the principles of collectivity. Let's get a bit fired up about it. Let's get a bit passionate. Let's inspire people with our commitment and intellectual rigour. Let's tell Abbott where he can get off. Unions have a proud tradition, they have a proud record and will make a valid contribution to the future of this society.
Steve Wilson
Dear Sir/Madam please find copy of resignation letter to ALP
I Steven Presley wish to resign from the Morwell branch of the alp and also as a member of the party. This decision has not been taken lightly and comes as debate from the hierachy on the future of the alp and of the representation of the union movement in the alp is questioned.
I believe the ALP no longer represents the values and aspirations of the working class including the organised labor force.
I believe if the ALP spent as much time effort policy and money on representing its true constituents and not pandering to the swingers or the "broad community" the traditional voters would not leave in droves looking to representation from the greens,democrats,independants and dare i say it the coalition.The Alp needs to work out if it even wants the unions and their members in the relationship at all and if not let the union movement go .
Its simply not good enough for the ALP to rock up just before an election wanting support,votes,working help and renumeration from party members and unionists then distancing from them when the election is over.
I hereby call on the union movement,ie the unions the trade halls and the actu to disaffiliate and withdraw funding from the ALP and form a new working person and left wing party with the values , traditions , aspirations and dreams created from the original struggle , Peter Lalor and later the unions of Australia.
Yours most truly
and always continuing the struggle
Steven Presley AMWU member Victoria
Dear Ed,
Well it looks like a large majority of workers can kiss their workers comp entitlements goodbye. I am appalled at the lack of leadership on this issue from the Labor Council and my own union.
While John Robertson has been assuring us that the unions would do something, of course they didn't. When workers join a union, I believe that the union should offer them something. In the case of workers comp, all the entire union movement seriously offered was a lobbying of cross bench MPS, which Mr Robertson has suggested again, today, on the eve of the legislation being put to the upper house.
Surely this is not the power of a union, and I think you'd find most members would agree that they're not paying a significant amount of their pay each week so that the Labor Council and affiliated unions can be so easily dismissive of their workers comp rights.
What we needed on this serious issue was serious action, and the Labor Council was totally incapable of this. The truth is, the Labor Council wasn't serious, and still isn't, about fighting this serious threat to our conditions and rights. Otherwise serious action would have been taken.
Workers were not mobilised on this issue because of the totally conservative, kiss-arse view of the union bureaucracy.
Our rights, which the Labor Council and affiliated unions have so easily given away, will take decades to get back, if ever. I think they should all think about their positions within the Labor Council, and exactly why they're "negotiating" when we should be striking and demonstrating! What's it going to take before the Labor Council uses the real power of the union.
And thanks for next weeek's meeting of Labor Council's Workers Compensation Committee to consider the government's latest package, Mr Robertson, but I think its a little too late, wouldn't you agree?
Sue Johnson
*********************
I cannot begin to adequately express my disappointment at the performance of the Labor Council leadership on the issue of recent Workers Compensation reforms.
The public were told that the Labor Council had secured significant softening of the legislation that went to Parliament on Tuesday 27 November 2001. Nothing could be further from the truth. The amendments that were made to the bill were nothing but meaningless tokens. If the Labor Council believes it secured some victories for injured workers over the last few days, it is woefully mistaken.
The facts are that no worker in this state now has any meaningful right to sue his or her employer for negligence. That applies to workers injured in the past, who for many reasons may not have been able to avail themselves of legal advice before the deadline for claims on 26 November, and to any worker injured in the future, excepting of course that extremely privileged class of worker, the coalminer.
Secondly, the goverment's supposed "backdown" on the availability of commutations is a red herring. A commutation will only be available if a worker meets a list of 7 criteria, all of which are to be determined by WorkCover, including a requirment that you are 15% permanently impaired! The realities are that injured workers will now be forever captives of the drip-feed Workers Compensation pension scheme, their every move directed and government by Workcover bureaucrats and insurance company claims officers. I do not doubt that in time, there will be individuals who go so far as to commit suicide when faced with the prospect of being irredeemably trapped in a life of poverty and powerlessness.
It seems to me that we have moved into the realm of Orwell's "1984", where Big Brother (or should I say, Sister) McKenzie is looking over the shoulder of every injured worker.
I can only hope that Premier Carr and his government are given the punishment they deserve by their deserted constituents come March 2003. The innocent victims of workplace injury have been cruelly shafted, and are clearly considered second-class citizens by this government.
Allison Robertson
Ed's Note: Both these letters came from active members of other organisations. As they refused to identify their organisation, neither will we. We will, however, publish their criticisms ...
Chris Christodoulou made a number of suggestions for reforming the ALP in WO119. Two of them were "rank and file election of conference delegates" and "electorate policy conventions in the lead up to conference."
What about applying these not only to branches but to affiliated unions? Imagine if affiliated unions were to hold rank and file elections for ALP conference delegates, and to hold ALP policy conventions in the lead up to ALP conferences. How in touch with the grassroots would that be? How hard would it be for any faction to 'stack' the membership of a union?
A number of the factional operators are now from their own positions of power, talking about the need to get rid of factions and the union connection. What are the benefits which motivate the factions? Positions on the ladder of power and influence, well-paid jobs as politicians (including outrageous super schemes) or senior union officials, that are accompanied by seats on boards with extra perks. The main incentives for factionalising would go if we got rid of this factional largesse. Leadership positions could be paid at an average rate for the workers being represented, and be temporary with the expectation of returning to the ranks of the people being represented, rather than part of a career structure.
I think that this would be a great start for putting the ALP and the union links onto a highly democratic footing, and with it would come much better prospects for policy based on principle versus populism, as Peter Lewis argued is required.
Janet Burstall
Dear Sir,
What an exciting concept is the utilisation of the already overworked, Hospital Staff in an ancillary roll as security, as suggested by the Labor State government and the current use of street sweepers as security guards in the area of local government, certainly stretches the interpretation of multi-skilling , or should that be skinning?
Perhaps in an effort to keep Ansett in the air, they could also utilise their staff, including flight attendants and co-pilots in a similar role?
This would enable further savings through further staff cuts, making both airlines much more competitive.
Don't laugh, if Chris Corrigian gets his hands on Ansett, we will have the same Industrial terrorism as displayed during the 1998 Waterfront dispute, and as for the limited options, I think a Fox in the Hen House would be much less disastrous, than a Mad Dog on your Arse?
Tom Collins
by Peter Lewis
Robert McClelland |
How hard has it been to dust off after the Federal Election?
You have just got to get back up and get into it. The most disappointing thing was to not have Kim Beazley as our Prime Minister. He would have been a great Prime Minister, but then we are into the battle.
What is your take on the debate that is currently engulfing the labour movement about the influence that unions should have within the ALP?
We have got a pretty successful model in the Labor Party that has existed for over a hundred years - twice as long as any other political party in Australia - one of the oldest social democratic parties in the world. So, you have got to start off and say, well we have got a pretty good model. But, having said that, it is na�ve not to say that you should examine all your structures as to their appropriateness.
I think our goal quite frankly should be to expand our membership base generally, but in so doing I am not sure that you have got to diminish any of the existing influences that are in the ALP.
In practical terms, what impact would a reduced union vote in the Party have had on the last Federal Election do you think?
Basically, in the use of the vernacular "bugger all". It didn't register on the Richter scale. Indeed, there is no question that trade unions assisted our campaign in terms of their communication with their members on matters that affected their working entitlements and matters that affected their family standard of living generally.
Trade unionism today is itself a broad movement. It is far more than simply a blue collar movement or a waterside workers movement or a mining movement. It reflects people who are nurses, who are policemen, who are firemen, who are engaged in call centers, in financial institutions - a whole spectrum of people that are ordinary Australian families. The trade union movement connects with the broader labour movement into ordinary Australian households.
You are pitted against Tony Abbott who is a very aggressive and confrontationalist politician, who actually uses IR as a platform for running politics. How do you plan to counter him in your portfolio?
Very much by focusing on the issues. Tony Abbott's problem is that he is playing to a very limited gallery. He is playing to the gallery of Liberal Party/National Party members in terms of his leadership aspirations. Now while his prancing about is superficially attractive to them, from the point of view of the broader Australian community, I think it is quite repugnant.
I will meet his style by simply focusing on the issues, and if there is one weakness that Tony has as a result of all his prancing about; as a result of him wanting to delve into the private lives of not only the Labor Party members, but also Liberal and other Coalition members, he hasn't had the time that he should have to spend in getting on top of his brief - and I intend to really exploit that.
How seriously do you think the Liberals are about pushing through their next wave of industrial relations changes?
I think the main thing they want to set up is the fact of opposition to their proposals, as opposed to achieving an outcome where they get their proposals up. Again, it is all for their political tactical reasons.
They were very, very good in the last election in terms of finding a new generation of Reds under the beds; namely these boat people coming to Australia. They are the old Menzies version of Reds under the beds, about to take over our society - and they are looking for some more Reds under the beds, and those are trade unionists. So they will be wanting to paint a picture that the Labor Party in terms of the Federal parliamentary party is dictated to by the unions. That is entirely false.
We will meet that by putting forward some very forward thinking agendas of our own. And that will include reintroducing the concept of good faith bargaining. In other words, restoring the rule of law in industrial relations, and also assistance for non-organised sectors of the workforce, such as your independent contractors, your bricklayers, your plumbers, your tilers, your courier drivers, your transport operators, who may not have award coverage.
We will look at doing stuff such as an unfair contracts sort of jurisdiction.
The other area where I am tremendously passionate about is just trying to empower workers generally by giving them the opportunity to be involved in workplace councils and actually get a piece of the action in terms of their participation in management decisions, and indeed, I would also like to see a situation where they have the opportunity to participate in sharing of the profits of the enterprise where they work.
Those last two issues - the councils and the shareholders - are issues that have been contentious in the union movement. Obviously you are not wanting to merely run the same IR policy that went to the election last time. In your view, is that all up for grabs again?
Well substantially. You have got your fundamental principles of fairness in the workplace, which is at the heart of the Labor Party, and indeed, I think it is fair to say that is why most people who are in the Labor Party ran for it - to keep general fairness and equity for working Australians.
With those underlying principles we will be putting forward a whole matrix of stuff which is very creative.
The Clinton administration did a whole lot of research in this area about how to get a next generation of productivity improvements from the workforce, and overwhelmingly the advice came back to them through a Commission that they established, was that you are not going to get a committed workforce giving 110% if they feel alienated with their employer.
A way to avoid that occurring was this concept of actually giving them a piece of the action; giving them the opportunity to participate in the management decisions; actually empowering them within their own workforce.
So, you are going to get a much more committed workforce - a workforce that is anxious to keep on developing best practice. Indeed, a workforce that wants to continue to learn, not only about their actual job, but about the running of the business.
At the next election it will be a choice between the current government that keeps on chanting the mantra of employer prerogative, and on the other hand a Labor Party that will actually be about empowering workers in a real and practical sense.
What about some of the issues that took a lot of negotiation to get into policy last time around? I am thinking particularly of AWAs. Will you continue to promise to abolish AWAs?
Again, the whole area is up for grabs. The way AWAs have operated has just been atrocious. You are getting sixteen year olds being compelled to sign AWAs in circumstances where there is no obligation on the employer to ensure that they have independent advice, either from a trade union, an industrial advocate, or from lawyers.
To think of that in any other area would just be an outrage. I think it is even more so when you are talking about people giving their physical labour - actually giving a part of their life to work for the profits of an employer.
The whole way that AWAs have operated has been harsh and oppressive and we have clearly indicated our opposition to AWAs as they operate.
In the past there has been opportunity for flexibility. I know in the finance sector for instance, there were provisions contained in Federal awards for there to be individual agreements about specific trade offs, particularly in circumstances where an employee was at a sufficient level where they weren't likely to be exploited. They could trade off things such as a lump sum annual fee instead of overtime, and a variety of other things that they could trade off in the context of their home loans and other various things of that nature.
We would certainly be prepared to look at this whole area, but in looking at the whole area our underlying point will be that it is a complete fallacy to assume that an individual worker has equal bargaining strength with an employer.
To think of a young worker, or a migrant worker for instance, to go in and sit down with the employer, who will most likely have the immediate supervisor of that person, the general manager and the accountant, sitting at a table with this individual being given a document saying this is the AWA that we are offering you. To consider that situation as an equality of bargaining power is just wrong, and that sort of arrangement we would continue to oppose.
What do you see as the main battleground over the next three years between yourself and the Howard Government?
Firstly, our goal will be to defend existing rights in term of the First Wave, which is going to be the unfair dismissal laws. We have said to the government, look, if you put to us propositions that are based on the concept of a mutual obligation of good faith on the part of the employer and the employee; if you put to us a proposition that is based on the concept of a fair go all round, and that means necessarily, before anyone is sacked they are given the right to be heard - then we are prepared to talk to you.
We don't think, however, that that is the Government's aim. We think the Government simply wants to cause this division by actually completely removing unfair dismissal rights for employees in businesses of less than 20, and moreover, in the election they said that they were going to try and extend those federal laws into the State area - to actually override State protections. Given that small businesses employ about 50% of the workforce, that would remove the protection of about 4 million Australian workers and their families, and that is something that is simply outrageous.
That is in one area. In the other areas we would very much be putting these positive agendas about the concept of good faith bargaining; about restoring the powers of an independent umpire - the Australian Industrial Relations Commission - and about actually going a step further and empowering workers by giving them a role to play in workplace councils.
Do you concede that the workers' entitlements issue is now effectively neutralized with the scheme that the Howard Government has come up with?
No. Far from it. They are talking about payment for they say eight weeks community standards. There is virtually no federal award employee that has only eight weeks for redundancy. That is based on the 1984 Termination Change in Redundancy Cases. In all other areas the States have moved considerably ahead of that, so they are talking about taking Australian workers back to a standard that is 17 years old and has been superseded by reality.
Far from saying that it is a neutral issue, we are about workers having their full entitlements and the employee protection scheme that we came up with at the last election I think is still sound policy.
I will be pushing and I believe we will continue to pursue this as a major part of our employment strategy.
Given though, that the next election is three years off, could you understand workers starting to go down their own track with schemes like ManuSafe?
You couldn't blame them could you? Insofar as that is the only game in town, given the attitude of the current Federal Government, you can well and truly understand it, but my personal view is that you need a much broader base, rather than a scheme that is applicable to an individual industry.
Even our scheme still enables these individual industry schemes to continue to operate. If an employer was participating in an individual industry scheme, they weren't going to be compelled to have to double up and pay into the Employee Protection Scheme. The desirable way of doing it is to have as big a pool as you can, so that would still be the major thrust of our policy, I anticipate.
You have personally taken on the IR portfolio, but also Attorney General. Does this represent a downgrading of the portfolio within the Federal Opposition?
Not at all, and far from it. Simon Crean very much wanted to enhance its significance from the point of view of the very significant legal protections that Australian workers have.
I think it is fair to say that at a federal level, the last bastion of safeguard for some of the greatest assaults from this Government has come from very strict legal interpretations regarding current protections by the Federal Court, so regrettably as a result of the policies that this Government has adopted, the courts have become important in industrial relations - the courts as opposed to the Industrial Relations Commission - and it recognizes that reality, so I think I am best placed, having both the legal expertise and the industrial relations background, to cope with the assault that this government is going to have.
Finally, how do you want to work with the unions over the next three years?
Very much. I have got a number of close friends in the union movement. I have got to say I have got a number of close friends on the employer side. Just having worked in the area and indeed, my experience is that there are people who are close friends who are employer advocates, employee advocates, involved in trade unions, involved in employer management.
Very much what we are about and Simon Crean has indicated, whereas the current government has been one of the most socially divisive governments in Australia's history, we will be very much a government that wants to build consensus.
We are firmly of the view that we are only 18 million people in a very volatile and competitive global environment. If we are going to prosper as a nation we can't afford to be divided against ourselves.
Another three years of this very divisive government is going to cause tremendous damage to the relationships within society, so we will have a hard job rebuilding those relationships, but very much during my period of Shadow Industrial Relations Minister I will be working at maintaining those relationships from the point of view of building consensus outcomes.
Sure, you are not going to get everyone agreeing to everything you put forward, but I think the most important thing is to listen, and then when you have formed your point of view; after receiving feedback to that point of view, you explain your reasoning, and I will very much be doing that.
Greg Combet |
****************
John Howard's electoral triumph on November 10 has understandably triggered a debate about why Labor lost, and what it must do to win next time.
Few commentators would deny that there were two defining features of the 2001 Federal election. Firstly, the degree to which domestic political issues were overshadowed by external factors. Secondly, the extent to which the tactics and policies of the major parties were defined by their parliamentary and administrative leaders - as evidenced by Howard's 'strong leadership' pitch and Labor's pre-election 'small target' strategy.
It is surprising then how much of the post-election analysis, led by commentary in The Australian, has been dedicated to the relationship between the Labor Party and the unions. It is an issue that had no discernible electoral impact at all.
Which is not to say that the Labor-union relationship should not be debated, but that it should be seen in a proper context.
Unions helped create the Labor Party over 100 years ago because they recognised that action was needed at a political level, as well as at a workplace level, if the aspirations of workers and their families were to be advanced.
The foundation of the relationship between Labor and the unions, one which continues to this day, is a set of broadly shared values and objectives - the commitment to a fair and just society.
Those of us in the labour movement must never lose sight of this. Consideration of the Labor-union relationship must not be confined to narrow debates about the size of union delegations at ALP conferences.
Labor's new leaders can build a platform for future electoral success by boldly stating their convictions, by developing policies which take into account the aspirations of Australian people, and by insisting on quality parliamentary candidates.
The most significant barrier arises in the selection of candidates. If ALP rules, factional self-interest, or union involvement demonstrably stand in the way, it is on that basis that the necessary changes must be argued. The problem is in no way confined to the NSW Branch of the ALP, which has attracted criticism. But leadership from NSW will be vital, for Federal Labor is strong when NSW Labor is strong.
In recent years the relationship between unions and Labor has been defined more by the Coalition than by the labour movement. John Howard, as a student of the Menzies period, knows that the conservatives can dominate when the labour movement is divided. That is why he denigrates unions and ridicules Labor politicians with a union background. Labor has been defensive about the issue, whereas a positive approach is needed.
Those in the labour movement who argue that the Labor-union relationship should be jettisoned altogether should consider the issues very carefully indeed. They should look to build on the strengths of the relationship, rather than condemn it for its weaknesses.
Unions are made up of 1.9 million members. Their fundamental objectives are to improve the living standards and quality of working life of these members and their families. Unions stand up for people's rights. And, contrary to the uninformed and glib assertion of Peter Botsman in this paper, many unions are adapting to the challenges of an open economy and are reaching out to new sections of the workforce.
Unions work closely with people in their workplaces and their communities. They know first hand the concerns and aspirations of many people.
Unions therefore have much to constructively contribute to the political process and the society. They share a wider vision with Labor - a growing economy that delivers jobs and opportunity, and a society that is compassionate and which bridges the divisions.
There may well be disagreement at times about policy, but the foundation of the relationship is sound and it has delivered much for Australian people in the past - jobs and education, Medicare, and superannuation - to name but a few areas of achievement.
Unions have also nurtured some of Labor's and the nations greatest leaders, including John Curtin, Ben Chifley and Bob Hawke. Similarly, Simon Crean will be strengthened, not weakened, by his experience as a union official representing ordinary people.
So as the debate about the relationship between unions and Labor develops, it will be important to maintain perspective. The collapse in Labor's primary vote to its lowest level in decades demands a widespread dialogue not just involving unions, but with business and other community representatives.
Labor's renewal must be driven by the clear and confident articulation of core values, community consultation, and the selection of quality candidates - not by a narrow debate about its' relationship with unions.
by WorkSite
Pilbara Action |
***********************
On Monday 2 July, the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission began to hear a union claim for a new award for iron ore workers employed at BHP's Pilbara operations. This, of course, is no ordinary hearing. The company found itself in a place it had been determined to avoid, confronting a collective it had tried to crush over the previous twenty months.
In 1999, BHP Iron Ore set out to break the unions on the Pilbara. On 11 November, BHP offered the members of its Pilbara iron ore workforce a considerable wage increase and massive cash pay-outs on accrued entitlements if they would walk away from collective bargaining and sign individual contracts, Western Australian Workplace Agreements, officially know as WPAs but colloquially referred to, along with those who signed them, as 'woppas' (or perhaps 'whoppers'). Later, company executives would be quite clear about their motivation, one telling the Federal Court that the key aim was 'the removal of the needs to negotiate change with union representatives'. The existing enterprise agreement was undesirable precisely because it required such negotiation.
Management confidence
The management of the company was entitled to be confident about the likely uptake of these contracts. After all, the rest of the Pilbara had long been deunionised following the high profile successes of employers at Robe River in the 1980s and Hammersley Iron in the early 1990s. And the Pilbara itself is isolated and, many would say, utterly different from the rest of the country. The BHP sites were spatially diverse: from the mine at Newman to the treatment plant and shipping facilities at the coast 450 kilometres away at Port Hedland. As if these sorts of physical problems were not enough, the unions themselves were divided, engaged in increasingly bitter disputes with each other over coverage.
The company's management played its cards pretty well. Wage negotiations had been stalled for some time and it was clear that management was trying to edge out of collective negotiations. The company was reducing employment levels, introducing workplace change, cutting back on union access and stringing out the enterprise agreement talks. There were visits from American management gurus and 'hug and tug' sessions to introduce the 'new BHP' to the workforce.
Then came the contract offers, smartly packaged, posted to the workers' homes just six weeks out from Christmas. At first sight they seemed attractive, with huge pay-outs of sick leave and an apparent wage increase of up to $20 000. These agreements would run for five years and, of course, contained no provisions for union representation or defence.
As with other companies trying to de-unionise the workforce, BHP's devil is in the detail. Union members argued that once bonuses and overtime rates disappeared, the apparent wage increases would evaporate. Most importantly, terms and conditions - and changes in them - would be governed by the Staff Handbook, not the agreement itself. One train driver, John Radford, said that you didn't need to be Einstein to work out what the WPAs meant: work as directed, work when, where and how - and hope the company looks after you. Of course, the WPA did not explicitly forbid unionism - that would be quite illegal - but it excluded the union from any of the formal procedures and in fact, just about excluded the employee from any say either!
Over the Christmas holidays, as many workers went away, the company's offer began to bite. Workers started to drift away from the unions while new starts were confronted with a stark choice: 'sign the WPA or look somewhere else for a job'. Tensions between friends rose, community associations became divided, families too began to split. The children of union loyalists signed on to the contracts, desperate for a job. Like all long-running disputes, there were immense personal as well as public costs; workers for whom unionism was an article of faith wondered what they had done to 'let down' the next generation. When 45 per cent of the workforce signed contracts over the summer of 1999-2000, the union cause looked doomed.
Yet, after that there was little movement away from what those remaining were now calling 'the collective'. In April 2001 when the company made a further round of offers, with still more enticements to quit the union, there was almost no uptake. Quizzed by ACTU officers in Melbourne, Ross Kumeroa, one of the mining union convenors, assured them there would be no further losses: 'We're solid'. By the middle of this year, the trend seemed to have been turned right around - so much so that non-union workers from the other Pilbara mine sites were holding meetings to begin their own union revival. How did this happen?
BHP pressure
The pressing needs of the union loyalists were to hold the line after management's initial success. The difficulties they faced were enormous, in attempting to bury inter-union rivalries and then to resist the company's attack on the union. The pressure continued over the summer and throughout 2000 and 2001: propaganda was mailed to the home, 'information sheets' on WPAs were handed out on site. BHP established a WPA website and ran advertisements on all local commercial television stations. On the job, the company ran a 'no tolerance policy' towards those sticking with the union. Union crews were disbanded, forced roster changes announced at the drop of a hat and one unionist was sacked for calling another employee a scab - offsite. (So far, no-one has been sacked for using the word 'woppa'.)
The union strategy would be fourfold, developing over time. The unions quickly secured nationwide union solidarity; they used a legal strategy; they worked with the ACTU and, above all, built an activist-led, grassroots campaign tied into families and local communities.
The company's representatives insisted that what happened in the Pilbara was confined to that 'unique' place and that the 'offer' of individual contracts was a one-off. BHP coalminers were not so sure and in any case made a special point of congratulating the Pilbara workers on their resistance. Other BHP employees met and decided upon strike action at most of the company's sites, including the single biggest, the steelworks across the continent at Port Kembla in New South Wales.
Court decision
The unions also decided upon a legal strategy, hoping to emulate the MUA's success against Patrick Stevedores in 1998. They argued in the Federal Court that BHP had contravened the Workplace Relations Act, by 'injuring' workers in their employment and offering 'inducements' to resign from a union. On 31 January 2000, the Court delivered an interlocutory decision in the unions' favour, finding that there were grounds for a full hearing to examine whether the freedom of association clauses in the Act had been breached. In the meantime the company was instructed to offer no further individual contracts.
As it turned out, the real significance of this legal strategy would be that it bought the unions some invaluable time. For after what seemed like a very long wait, the final decision of the Court came down on 10 January 2001. The Federal Court cleared the company of any wrongdoing, ruling that the offer of individual contracts did not mean that the company was seeking to remove workers' rights to belong to a union. The ACTU's official response cannot really be improved upon: this was like saying you could belong to a golf club but not use the course.
The dispute would, then, be determined on the ground, in the Pilbara itself, as ACTU support and local activism merged. An early and vital turning point came on 19 January there were several arrests at Port Hedland and a major assault on pickets at Mount Newman by Western Australian police, an assault which brought widespread condemnation of both BHP and the police service. The nationwide television coverage suggested much more clearly than such confusing and dramatic footage usually does that the attack had been unprovoked.
Picket supporters
The violence had an immediate impact on those involved too. Watching on TV, workers and their families in Port Hedland wondered what would happen there at their own picket lines. Partly for these reasons as well as a desire to deal with low morale and uncertainties among the families, two Port Hedland women, Colleen Palmer and Rachel Cosgrove, joined the picket line and began to talk to friends and acquaintances to establish a women's support group. By the following Saturday, they had done enough to gather 80 women and their partners for a meeting and barbecue in the town and had established their own group, Action in Support of Partners, (ASP).
From the very beginning the Pilbara's own and independent way of doing things had been asserted. Union members insisted that they would not be relying on the courts 'to fix the dispute', as Gary Wood, the president of the combined unions bargaining unit, put it. Rather, the industrial campaign would continue until BHP came to the table to negotiate new agreements with the unions. What was new was the nature of the support that these workers received and then how they built upon that to do the job themselves. In the past there had been - and the residue is still strong - immense suspicion of the ACTU. When the Robe River dispute blew up, the union movement was in thrall to the corporatist, national scale strategies of Accordism and cooperative relationships at the workplace. What to do with rogue employers, though? But now there was an ACTU leadership at least talking the talk of membership involvement. Would this work on the Pilbara? Would the new 'organising model' work in the face of an attack on unionism by one of the biggest companies in the country?
The unions' activists and leaders decided that this time they would seek ACTU aid. So, a combination of national support and local action began the fightback. The ACTU sent in a kind of 'trouble-shooting organiser', Troy Burton, for an initial assessment. Soon after, there were organising workshops in delegate training, something lacking in the past. In November 2000, a full-time organiser, Will Tracey, was sent in for an initial period of 12 months. Local structures and organisation were transformed. The worksites were mapped for signs of strength and weakness; the traditional mass meeting was all but abandoned in favour of regular delegates meetings and pre-shift meetings. In a remarkable change, meetings of single unions gave way to combined meetings of the MUA, the Mining Unions Association.
Union co-operation
These changes meant that entirely new structures were being built. It was not simply a matter of trying to revive an old model of unionism based on reliance on organisers, convenors and court deals. Within a few months, a delegate structure had been established with ratios of activists to members of the order of one to five. Combined union meetings are now held fortnightly with about 30 convenors and delegates attending along with representatives from the women's group, ASP. At the same time, to counter company propaganda, the activists had their own 'one to one's' with members and published a pointed and powerful weekly newsletter, Rock Solid. Arising from these meetings and the generally improved communications, the unions began to run small industrial campaigns over the issues of most concern to workers.
Looking at all these changes, though, is only part of the story. The renewal of unionism was about the action of individual workers, about growing confidence that the so-called 'Big Australian' could be made to listen to the working Australian. So, union members and their families have bounced back from the shattering times of November 1999, growing in confidence about what 'the collective' means. They began with small gestures to signal union pride: at first wearing union stickers and then union shirts. These simple actions - decried by some officials at first as not fair dinkum unionism - boosted morale and suggested that although knocking over the company would be hard, it might be fun too.
Listening to stories of the dispute, this is perhaps the most impressive thing about it all - the good humor, the fun of it in the face of a tough de-unionisation drive. So, the union loyalists made bonfires with the letters and publicity blurbs offering them contracts. On another occasion, they numbered them and raffled them off as a fund-raiser. At the worksites, they copied the card system of football referees. There is the warning card - yellow of course - and then the red cards shown to overly persistent supervisors who try to talk them into signing contracts. They have sent letters to BHP refusing to sign a contract at any time: 'Which part of NO don't you understand?'. They have sent memos: 'Did you hear my message? No thank you!' The point is that these and other tactics have come from the workers themselves.
The role of the union in a community has changed as well. Two weeks out from Port Hedland's local council elections in May, the unions decided to run candidates under the slogan 'to ensure families, communities and workers are represented on council.' Even with so little time to prepare they were successful: Paul 'Curly' Asplin and Arthur Gear were elected out of a slate of five.
What we have here, then, is no ordinary story of industrial relations, no mere 'case study' of union renewal but much more. The 'working Australian' has stood firm in the union against the 'Big Australian'. Researching and writing about this successful resistance is to share in an inspiring set of stories from a great bunch of people, the flesh and blood, heart and soul of what genuine unionism is about on the Pilbara and a sign of what unionism might be in other places too.
Bradon Ellem, Work & Organisational Studies, University of Sydney. Thanks to many people in WA for their time and thoughts: in Perth, Janis Bailey, Sally Cawley, Tony Cooke and Mike Llewellyn; on the Pilbara, Curly Asplin, Ross Beggs, Maria Boyington, Brett Davis, Colin Gilbert, Johnny Johnson, Ross Kumeroa, Colleen Palmer, Terry Palmer, John Radford, Will Tracey - and Batman for the ride in the truck.
by Jim Marr
Leonie with Wendy, Sharon & Gough |
Saunders was a central figure in a major CPSU greenfields organising push. Faced with an aggressive employer, AAPT, and Government-imposed limitations, she refused to be hamstrung, opting for a community-based approach to building membership.
Less than a year ago, Saunders became only the second of more than 300 call centre workers at the company's Bendigo site to take the union option.
Since then more than 100 workmates have joined the CPSU and when Saunders moved, last month, into a Melbourne role as a fulltime organiser she left behind an infrastructure headed by six delegates and three deputies.
Not allowed to hold union meetings on site, AAPT unionists stage monthly get-togethers at nearby Darby O'Gill's Hotel - one of several local businesses providingdiscounts to CPSU members as a result of initiatives from AAPT workers.
"The discounts are a two-way street," Saunders explained. "They benefit small local retailers as well as our members.
"Our organising has been about community. Even in major cities it is important to remember that we are all part of communities and we all do better if our communities succeed.
"Trade unionism is not blinkered."
Another AAPT campaign has been raising Christmas money for locally-based charity, St Lukes Family Care. When the company vetoed a sausage sizzle on its property workers got a council permit to hold it on public land next door and boosted fundraising by attracting people from other CPSU sites, including Centrelink and Telstra, along with workers from the Bendigo Trades Hall.
AAPT unionists are determined to build on the base Saunders left behind. The day after she accepted her Delegate of The Year gong from Labor luminary Gough Whitlam, a busload of former workmates travelled to Melbourne to participate in an AIRC case demanding "fair bargaining" in their on-going battle for a certified agreement.
by Worksite
****************
India is an impossible country to describe: it is full of contradictions, ever changing but eternally the same, an absurd blend of the ancient and post-modern, continually frustrating but always stimulating. Humphrey Hawksley, a veteran BBC journalist, commented to an Indian colleague that little had changed in the Mumbai slums since he first visited 20 years earlier. 'Ah', replied his friend, 'but they now have electric fans and television!'
On my most recent visit to India, I was struck by the fact that at least two national obsessions remained unchanged: the Indian passion for cricket and their antipathy towards Pakistan. The Indian cricket remains under a cloud despite recent success against Australia. Former captain and coach Kapil Dev and several other players currently 'resting' while charges against them for match fixing are being investigated. While the Indian army 'won' against Pakistan in the recent border skirmishes, a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir problem remains elusive. The Indian media has lambasted the government not only for its failure to resolve the Kashmir issue but also for preventing the Indian cricket team playing against Pakistan because they fear losing to a superior side!
IT Investment
The latest obsession in India, however, is with information technology (IT). On a recent visit to India, Microsoft Chairman, Bill Gates, pledged that his company would invest at least 50 million US dollars in its India-based software development centres, over the next three years. This was hailed by politicians and business leaders as a signal that India was joining the ranks of the most advanced economies! The city of Bangalore, where Microsoft has its Indian headquarters, has been proclaimed as a new Silicon Valley, with more than 75,000 professionals employed in IT-related activities. Yet there remains major problems with basic education as Bill Gates himself has acknowledged by donating 5 million US dollars for rural education and basic skills development.
Hi-Tech Hype
The hype surrounding India's new 'love affair' with IT illustrates the gap between image and reality in India. Every small business seems to advertise an internet address and 'cybernet' cafes abound. Yet trying to send or receive an internet message can be quite a challenge. Last year I spent several frustrating days failing to gain access to hotmail via the business centre in an international hotel in Chennai. This year the task was somewhat easier but getting a connection remained difficult, unless one was willing to pay a large fee to gain a fast connection.
The convergence of IT and media in India has recently captured the attention of Australia's own Kerry Packer. The Packers' Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd (PBL) has entered the cable TV business in India in partnership with Himachal Futuristics. The Indian media commented favourably on the Packer move based on his successful World Series Cricket initiative. For the moment PBL has only purchased time slots on an existing channel so that it can show its own programs (based on successful Australian programs such as The Price is Right), on Indian TV. It anticipated that PBL will eventually start its own channel. However, Packer is looking for a convergent platform - a channel and portal as one single avenue which could be commonplace once broadband becomes a reality. The Indian press noted that James Packer has already taken PBL into the Internet age by launching ninemsn.com along with Microsoft, in Australia, and could be looking at expansion into India and beyond.
Low Tech Reality
But while the Indian media remain mesmerised by Bill Gates and Kerry Packer bringing global communications and IT to India, the reality of life for the Indian masses remains grim. Approximately one-third of Indians are below the poverty line, which means that they are unable to get two adequate meals a day. Furthermore, India in among the less educated nations with only about a 50 per cent literacy rate. India is also one of the most unhygienic countries in the world with its mighty rivers like the Ganges highly polluted. Inadequate access to clean drinking water is arguably the greatest threat to public health in India. During the next 25 years, demand for water by industry and agriculture is expected to double while domestic use will triple.
There has been economic development in recent years, with impressive rates of economic growth during the 1990s, but it has not reduced the level of poverty and the economic disparities between rich and poor have increased. The economic problems facing India have a long history. When India gained independence from Britain in 1947, Prime Minister Nehru promised that this would mean the end of mass poverty. But an economic policy of import substitution or 'swadeshi', which lasted 40 years, meant that most Indian capitalists and government-owned industries were protected from foreign competition. In many cases, products were of lower quality and costs were higher than imported goods. By contrast, many other countries which practiced 'export promotion' were more successful than India, even though they were poorer at the outset.
Economic Gains
Under Rajiv Gandhi, India's protectionist economic policies were replaced by a more liberal regime. Foreign investment and the use of modern technology was encouraged, import restrictions were eased and many new industries were established. In the automobile sector, for example, a large number of American, European and Japanese manufacturers have entered the market and established new plants. Production has been growing by around 33 per cent each year since the mid 1990s. While the joint venture between Maruti and Suzuki still accounts for 60 per cent of the total output, and produces the best selling model in the small car segment, other manufacturers gained a larger share of this market. While most passenger cars in the small and medium sized sectors, there has been significant growth in the deluxe and luxury models, with Daimler Chrysler being among the fastest growing manufacturers. Yet the infrastructure of roads and highways remains woefully inadequate and traffic congestion is increasing rapidly in Indian cities. This has been exacerbated by a major shift in commercial traffic from rail to roads during the past decade. While economic liberalism has brought an inflow of private capital, there have been insufficient government funds to maintain or expand the required infrastructure. Recently, the Indian National Highway Act was amended to allow the private sector to construct highways and collect tolls in selected areas, but this is not occurring fast enough to solve emerging problems.
Since 1998 a diffuse array of around 13 parties, led by the Hindu-fundamentalist Bharatiya Janatra Party (BJP), has governed India under Prime Minister A.B.Vajapayee. The BJP has been gradually privatising public sector industries and has promised to increase outlays for power, communications and energy. However, this 'grand coalition' has been characterised by internal strife and indecisiveness. Although the BJP and its alliance parties were recently re-elected by a small margin, this was mainly due to the electorate's lack of enthusiasm for the Congress Party under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi (widow of Rajiv Gandhi). The BJP-led coalition government has recently faced an internal backlash from the Swadeshi Jagron March (SJM) which is demanding a total ban on the import of agricultural products, no foreign direct investment except in export-oriented areas and renegotiation by India of its membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The SJM has strong representation with the BJP's traditional support base and poses a threat to an already weak government.
Self-Help
The benefits of the policies of economic liberalism, pursued by both the Congress and BJP governments during the 1990s, have not 'trickled down' to the vast majority of Indians who are engaged in small scale agriculture and industry. As successive governments have failed to provide a solution to poverty, there is growing support for policies of self help and mutual cooperation. Some non-government organizations (NGOs) have been advocating schemes, initiated by local communities and supported by some state governments, which rely on people gaining self confidence to find their own solutions to improve their conditions of life.
In the state of Maharashtra, in a region where there is a shortage of drinking water, several villages have cooperated to build small 'check dams' during the raining season. This has increased the supply of water not only for drinking but also for irrigation. It has also resulted in more water going underground to feed local wells. In the same area, villages also took the initiative to construct extra rooms for their primary schools in order to provide better facilities. In each of these cases, government support was achieved after the villagers had demonstrated that their local initiatives were successful.
During our visit to Cochin in the state of Kerala, we met a voluntary organisation which assists Muslim women in the slum areas to develop networks which provides both social and economic support. The group is called DARSHN (Development Action through Self Help Network) and it brings together groups of women in a neighbourhood and encourages them to pool their savings in order to obtain small loans to set up businesses within the community. Many of the women's husbands are working as labourers in the Arabian Gulf countries and send money back to their wives. Most of the women have little education and feel isolated just caring for their children. The network provides them with informal education, builds their confidence, extends their social contacts and provides them with a more secure economic base. The coordinators of DARSHN have been able to gain some financial support from government to extend the network and access low interest loans.
Community Development
The concept of community development by mutual cooperation between people at the local or grassroots level is by no means new. However, the application of the concept (as opposed to theoretical discussions) is becoming more widespread. This approach does not oppose market principles but it seeks to ensure that these work in favour of communities. Similarly, government assistance is not rejected but is tailored to the needs of communities rather than increasing dependence on government for initiatives and economic support. The local council (or panchayat) can also assist the process of community development if it is prepared to play a facilitative role. Not surprisingly, self development at the community level depends heavily on education for its success.
Education
The contrast between myth and reality in India is greatest in the field of education. Indians are rightly proud of their long traditions in science and philosophy sciences such as linguistics, medicine and mathematics can be traced back to Vedic times. The study of linguistics was formulated by Sanskrit scholars in the fourth century BC and the systematic study of mathematics developed from the fifth century. The origin of astronomy can also be traced to India. Many of the world's oldest religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, have their origins in India. However, while education is free and compulsory in India for all up to the age of 14, only half of Indian children aged 11-14 years are currently enrolled in school. Furthermore, half of all students from rural areas dropout before completing primary school. National literacy among those aged 15 years of age is more than 52 per cent (38 per cent among females). A major initiative to improve literacy in the 1990s, known as 'Operation Blackboard' failed due to lack of funds.
Although India boasts that it is the world's largest democracy, the nation remains plagued by corruption and political instability. There is great nostalgia for Jawaharal Nehru, the first post Independence Prime Minister, who led India from 1947 until his death in 1964. His daughter Indira Gandhi, had mixed success during two long periods as Prime Minister and was tragically assassinated while in office (as was her son, Rajiv who succeeded her). Since the Nehru-Gandhi period, there have been numerous Prime Ministers who have served only briefly in office. Narasimha Rao, who was the most recent Prime Minister from the Congress Party, has been charged with bribing another political party to support his government. The current Prime Minister, A.B. Vajapayee, is ailing and leads a weak coalition government which is unlikely to have a long tenure. Multiple levels of local, state and federal governments, which are often antagonistic to each other, are inimical to stable and effective government. Corruption at all levels of government, however, poses a more entrenched and long-term challenge to democracy in India. One small glimmer of hope is provided by the recent revival of the panchayat system of local government, which may help to revive participation by citizens at the local or grassroots level.
Strong Identity
It would be premature to dismiss India as a lost cause. The resilience of the Indian people, particularly at the village level, is formidable and the nation remains rich in human resources. Few countries have maintained a strong national identity over such a long period of history. Yet the problems of sustaining a population of more than one billion people are formidable. Water resources are woefully inadequate and soil degradation is of growing concern. Yet India is developing new industries, not only in IT but also in alternative forms of energy. During the 1990s, India became the world's third largest producer of wind energy and it is expanding its use of solar and hydro power (albeit controversial). The past decade has also seen a major increase in foreign direct investment. A major challenge for future governments will be to ensure that the advantages of economic growth and development are spread more evenly across society. The engagement of the India masses in democratic institutions, particularly at the village and grassroots level, is also important for the future development of the nation.
Professor Russell Lansbury, Work and Organisational Studies, University of Sydney.
by Andrew Casey
NDP Conference Opening |
***********************
As in Australia, with the ALP, much of the soul-searching is focused on rumblings and grumblings about the union bloc votes at party conventions.
Unlike the ALP the NDP has never come close to winning government - at the federal level - in Canada.
The most seats it has ever won was in 1988 with 43 seats out of 295 seats. At the moment in the Canadian Federal parliament the NDP holdx 13 seats.
The key issue at last weekend's national NDP convention for the 1400 delegates was what percentage of the votes at the convention should be given to trade union delegates in the vote for leadership positions.
The delegates from thoughout Canada met to debate what had been characterized as the party's troubled relationship with the unions who helped set it up some 40 years ago.
Those who wanted to push the NDP into the 'middle ground' - the group supported by the national party leader Alexa McDonough - wanted to completely abolish the trade union delegate vote.
The huge Canadian Auto Workers union had threatened to walk out of the party if the NDP turned its back on the union movement.
The CAW activists at the convention were part of a 'socialist bloc' which advocated the creation of a new party, a name change and a discernible left turn - making it more popular among young people, greens, gays and social activists.
This group has set up the by New Politics Initiative to promote their alternative 'socialist' and pro-union Canadian political party.
This so-called 'socialist bloc' was in the minority at the weekend convention but NDP leader McDonough compromised at the last moment by offering to keep a union bloc vote at the national convention.
On the opening day of the NDP convention Ms McDonough stepped back from her original position and publicly acknowledged the importance of the unions.
She was quoted in the Canadian media stating that: ' trade unions are the key to social-democratic parties and it is important the NDP have a strong relationship with labour.'
The convention endorsed a compromise that gives 25 per cent of the vote to trade-union delegates while the rest of the party uses the one-member one-member one-vote system in the election of leaders of the NDP.
The NDP Convention website gave a good report on the debate about one-member one-vote - with a pr�cis of the arguments from delegates for and against the effective role of unions in the NDP.
The debate ended with a rousing speech from former NDP federal party leader, Ed Broadbent who was strongly for the continuing relationship with the union movement.
Greeted to the microphone by a standing ovation from delegates. Broadbent pointed out that labour had a long association with the party, starting with a union local in his hometown of Oshawa.
In 1937, that union local's president was also president of the local Co-operative Commonwealth Federation branch ( a precursor party to the NDP).
Ed Broadbent pointed out that in 1961 labour and the CCF came together to form the NDP and that if one looks at the social democratic parties in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, all those parties had a special relationship with workers and their unions.
"I am a feminist, I was the first federal feminist leader in Canada, but other groups are not like labour unions work for equality and fairness in the workplace and they cut across more issues and walks of life than any other group".
The Philosophy Of the Australian Labor Party
First of the social-democratic parties to attain political power, the Australian Labor Party offers the longest case study in the practices of democratic socialism. Elected as government of the Commonwealth of Australia before the first great war, and having controlled at one time or another every Australian state, Labor revealed the difficulties inherent in the activities of a political party which sought support on the basis of meeting the urgent problems of the electorate, and yet obtained its drive and unity from a social purpose and philosophy. Today, five of the six states have a Labor government. Labor is in control of both houses in the Commonwealth Parliament � the strongest political position ever held at one time by the party.
There are more trade unionists, a higher proportion to total wage earners, than ever before in our history.
Writing at this moment from the height of Labor's political achievements, we could be satisfied with these political results, if on the one hand we were not aware that Australian Labor political victories have generally been followed by splits, defeats, disillusionment, and on the other hand if we did not feel, that Labor had not yet consolidated its position educationally, economically, and administratively. Until Labor takes such a control over economic development that depressions and poverty are eliminated, political victories are short-lived and the impact of Labor on Australian life ephemeral.
II
The "objective" of the Australian Labor Party, boldly stated at the head of its constitution, is:
"The Socialization of Industry, Production, Distribution and Exchange." That seems clear enough. As frank, if not as clear, is the statement of "Principle of Action"...
Socialization of Industry by:
(a) The constitutional utilization of the Federal, State and Municipal Government Parliamentary and administrative machinery.
(b) The extension of the scope and powers of the Commonwealth Bank until complete control of banking is in the hands of the people.
(c) The organization and establishment of co-operative activities, in which the workers and other producers shall be trained in the management, responsibility and control of industry.
(d) The cultivation of Labor ideals and principles, and the development of the spirit of social service.
(e) The setting-up of Labor research and Labor information bureaus, and Labor educational institutions.
(f) Progressive enactment of reform, as defined in the Labor Platform as set out hereunder.
But Australian Labor has never directly nationalized an industry; its attempts at driving private industry; it attempts at driving private industry out of existence by competition have been limited in extent and superficial in purpose....
In the details of the platform under the heading of "Constitutional Amendments. Nationalization, Tariffs, Etc." will be found surrounded by a mass of opinions on every aspect of political demands, more exact demands, such as,
Nationalization of:
(a) Banking and Insurance (including sick, accident, life, and unemployment).
(b) Monopolies.
(c) Shipping.
(d) Public Health.
(e) Wireless transmission, including broadcasting.
(f) Sugar refining.
(g) Munitions of war.
These promises theoretically cannot be avoided; yet they have been ignored by Labor governments.
Is not this, therefore a betrayal of Labor's policy or must not the conclusion be that whatever is the philosophy of Labor, Labor is not a socialist party?
If we make such an approach to the discussion, we will fail completely to understand Labor in Australia or a working-class movement � even though the conclusion seems so logical and inevitable.
The problem is not a simple one, since the "party" which lays down the fundamental "Objective" and the "Principles of Action," which sets out the demands, brings forward legislation, which ignores the "Objective," administers a government and attacks the Labor government, goes on strike and denounces strikes, sets up state industries and sells state industries, believes in freedom of speech and restricts freedom ... is the same "party" in its many members and ramifications, motives and agencies, moods and instruments. We could, therefore, say as does the socialist outside the party, "The Labor Party is not a socialist party;" or as the socialist within says, "The party is socialist and is moving toward its goal," or the critic within, "We are not moving quickly enough," or the politician, "We are moving as quickly as the public desires. Do you want us to be defeated?"
All answers are right, since they are reactions to sectional aspects, and all are wrong if they are final, since the problem confronting either the activist or the philosopher of the Australian Labor Party has never been to make unreal generalizations of a group, a mood, an action or a person, but to reconcile a mass of ingredients and purposes. In this way only, can we discover Labor's Way of Life.
The next step will be, therefore, not to discuss the simple words of the objective, as stated in the platform, but to analyze the history of the ideas that have been compressed into one word �"socialization."
III
The formation of the Australian Labor Party in the '90's of the last century was a climax in the democratic and liveral development of the colony, from a penal settlement to a self-governing unit of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
English Chartists strengthened the democratic movements for self-government and abolition of the penal transportation in the '50's. The founder of the Eight Hour Movement was a Chartist and English trade unionist. Represented at the Eureka goldfields revolt in 1854 were men from every phase of revolution and reformism from almost every country. International socialists had a paper in Victoria in 1872. The Irish at every stage in our history, either as convicts trying and occasionally succeeding in escaping, or as free men joining any organization with a kick or a threat, linked the unrest of the old and new worlds. The struggles against convictism and for local self-government in the '40's and '50's, the democratic agitation that by the '70's had won manhood suffrage, vote by ballot and payment of members, the conflicts over the distribution of land which had produced a liberal and radical force, the beginnings of trade unions, the restrictions on migration�these influenced the existing parties, and made them "progressive," whatever might have been their party titles. These influences became especially important during the late '80's and early '90's when, because not merely had the initial drive for reform subsided among the existing parties, which needed a transfusion from the masses, but also Australia was caught up in the new world-wide economic and intellectual ferment. Internally, this climax meant that the earlier desultory attempts by unions to form an independent political party were widened and consolidated in a Labor Party in the '90's by the stalemate of liberalism, the failure of existing parties to satisfy Labor's demands, the use of police and army in strikes, and defeat in strikes.
Henry George's Progress and Poverty reached Australia, was reprinted in a Sydney newspaper, popularized by local reformers. George stimulated the interest in land reform when he toured Australia in 1889. Although he opposed socialist theories and advocated special ideas of "single-tax," his fellow travellers were prominent in the early Labor Leagues and many came to socialism in Australia as in Britain, through the stimulus that they obtained from discussions on the land problem. Organizers of the Knights of Labor visited Australia. Bellamy's Looking Backward had an amazing circulation and influence�my father was a member of a "Bellamy Club" in Brisbane in the '90's�and "National Clubs" were formed; every radical answered the critics of socialism with extracts from Looking Backward. Also widely read were Gronlund's Co-operative Commonwealth, Caesar's Column, William Morris' Dream of John Ball and News from Nowhere, Olive Scheiner's Story of an African Farm, collections of John Stuart Mill's essays.
William Lane converted these ideas into an Australian Collectivism in his Workingman's Paradise.
The Labor Party had gathered into its organization those trade unionists who wanted the state to provide higher standards for workers and easier methods of settling disputes than strikes, "White Australians" who feared the competition of cheap labor, tariff reformers who wanted to guarantee jobs by exchanging imported goods, republicans, single taxers, land nationalizers, reformers of every kind. So developed what Pember Reeves, author of State Enterprise in New Zealand and Australia, called that "ill-defined blend of Radicalism, Socialism, and Trade Unionism, the Progressive programme in Australia and New Zealand."
The elements mentioned�and others�are still present in the Labor Party. They modify and they impose their meaning on the "party." They twist and distort the program; they make the program; they are instruments of corruption and activists of the moment; they are demagogues of the phrase and canvassers for a lifetime; also they are socialists and idealists; they use the ideal to service their own ends and their ends are often the resolutions of Labor League members ... but they are all part of the Labor movement.
A political party that is aiming at being the government will inevitably modify its policy to win support; a mass political party will draw to its ranks many who are seeking to satisfy particular interests or at the best many who are not consciously socialists. (Membership in the Australian Labor Party costs less than a dollar a year.) Partly the main limitation is educational; partly it is the effect of the temptation to seek immediate aims. Though harsh words have always been brought against politicians, the politician has generally been the voice of the majority; most of his critics have succumbed to that influence. It is only the beginning the problem for the critic to say, "If the Labor Party is true to its principles, it would expel them." For who is "Them"? Or to demand, "Labor will always fail to be socialist, until it gets rid of the nationalist, the single taxer, the currency reformer, the publican, the businessman, the communist, the trade union protectionist, the racial demagogue, the isolationist." There would be no one left!
***********
I keep thinking about the very witty TV ads put out by the Australian Democrats during the election campaign, which superimposed the sound of two dogs barking over shots of the debate between Kim Beazley and John Howard. And what were they barking at us for five long, terrible weeks? Security. Security at home and abroad. Security in times of international turmoil; security against terrorism; and most incredibly, the security of our borders against asylum seekers, against the alarming threat posed to our "national life" by those who wish no more than we do: to work and live with some sense of safety; to support and educate their children; to worship their gods; to give and receive love.
More than once during the past few weeks it has occurred to me that the cry of "security" is the last refuge of the political scoundrel. One of the lessons of this book, when it comes to these dogs barking security, is that we are always going to be on the wrong side of the fence from them. They promise to keep us safe, but they're only tearing us to bits.
I know there are a lot of us who feel a deep sense of shame about where this nation has sunk to. I felt shame when our leaders could only trade insults as 350 people drowned off Indonesia, and as I listened to John Howard speak on 2GB radio with the most alarming imagery he could plausibly use: "I don't want to use the word invaded", he said, but the "shores of this nation [are] thick with asylum seeker boats, thick with asylum seeker boats".
The question is, what do we do with that shame? Do we turn it inwards and let it corrode our hope and idealism? Do we succumb to resentment? Or do we strike out in a new direction, based on a deeper understanding of how this occurred and how we can promote a new reality? This book tells us a lot about why this election occurred and why Howard's strategy worked - he was drawing on an anxiety that has run through Australian culture for two hundred years. This book also tries to imagine a new kind of identity and sovereignty fit for the moral, political and economic complexities of a globalised world; one in which our space of community and sympathy is always enlarging, rather than turning in on itself like a dying plant.
This book takes a very critical look at the idea and practice of security in this country and elsewhere, and it does end up being very sceptical about the concept of security. But I do believe that there are security issues that are important: I accept the kinds of domestic security issues Kim Beazley was talking about the during the election campaign, about jobs, health, education and opportunity - we can argue about Labor's ability to deliver on them, but these are real needs and at least someone tried to remind us of them. There is the basic defence of Australia against serious military threats; there is the need to be vigilant (but not overanxious) about terrorism; to control the flow of hard drugs into our society; and the times when our strategic concerns merge with the human security of our neighbours, as occurred in East Timor in 1999. There is plenty of room for debate in these areas, but they are rarely the stuff of scandal.
This book is about the way in which security in this country has become a scandal, and unfortunately we are not talking about a few policy aberrations. It goes to the heart of who we are: to our basic images of national identity, of political rights and participation, to our relationship with the traditional owners of this country, and to our relations with the outside world. It is about the relationship between inside and outside in what passes for our national consciousness. It is about whether or not this is truly a liberal society or some kind of 18th century sham, weighed down by its fear of the Other and its obsession with exclusion and control. It is about whether or not justice, in its most profound historical sense, has a meaningful place in our world. It is about whether we are free, or slaves to someone else's claustrophobic idea of freedom.
So this is a book about Australia's security obsession, but even more importantly it is a book about security as a form of politics and power, about security as something that does things to us and to others, that controls and cramps our lives rather than something that enables and enriches them. It is about a security that always seems to be on the wrong side of justice, whether it be justice for indigenous people, for the people of East Timor and Afghanistan, for the developing world, and more.
Australia's treatment of asylum seekers is only the most recent example of the pattern that has run through Australian history, from the very first decisions made by the British Government of William Pitt to colonise this continent. In that pattern, we have always purchased our security at the expense of another, at the expense of the suffering and insecurity of another.
In 1786 the British chose to colonise Australia to secure their ruling classes from the threat of what they saw a growing wave of crime in England; once that colony was established, the first serious threat to its security came from the traditional owners of this country. In the 1880 and 90s it was the fear of Asian immigration, of Japan, and of striking workers. Speaking of this time, Manning Clark coined a phrase that became a kind of Leitmotif for this book: he wrote that the Australian Constitution was designed as "a fortress against both the enemy without and the enemy within".
How often have we seen that since - during the Great War and after, as Billy Hughes split the Labour movement overt the issue of conscription, accusing his opponents of being an unpatriotic rabble of Bolsheviks and Sinn Feiners. Again during the Cold war, when Menzies sought to use the defence powers of the Constitution to outlaw the Communist Party and its "fellow travellers", at the same time as he sent troops to Southeast Asia to fight communism. It is worth recalling Sir Garfield Barwick's argument in 1962 that "Vietnam is our present frontier" and that of Defence Minister Paltridge who believed that "the security of Australia would be at stake if Vietnam fell".
The enormous suffering of the Vietnamese, and the trauma of our veterans, was to be the price of our security, just as was the suffering of the 1.5 million murdered and imprisoned by the Soeharto regime between 1965 and 1970 - a regime Gough Whitlam welcomed as an agent of "democracy, justice and freedom". Through the 1970s, 80s and much of the 1990s our security was purchased at the expense of the suffering of the Timorese and other opponents of Soeharto, according to an assumption that the his regime was, in Paul Keating's words, "the most beneficial strategic development to affect Australia and its region in thirty years".
This is why, in my own efforts to try and understand our obsession with security, I turned to the comment by East Timor's Bishop Belo, from his biography. After the murder of a youth by Indonesian security forces on the eve of the 1991 Dili Massacre he exclaimed to a friend: "The news put out by TVRI was false! False! The truth turned upside down. We live in a country where bad is good, light is dark, and there is no justice!"
This is how I feel about security - it's the truth turned upside down, a world where bad is good, light is dark, and where we seem to accept these appalling paradoxes at face value. I was reminded of the Party's slogans in Orwell's novel 1984, "Freedom is Slavery", "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength". We may not be living the nightmare of that world but we have entered into its logic, and to those slogans we have added our own: "Security is Fear".
This explains the presence of theory and philosophy in this book, interwoven with the narrative. Not because some of these ideas are fashionable, but because it seemed the only way to cut through the structure of commonsense that men like John Howard and Philip Ruddock have used to such destructive effect. Our problem is twofold: not only are we faced with the very long presence in Australian culture of a fear and exclusion of Others, but by the presence of that fear in the basic concepts of security, identity and sovereignty that we inherit from western political thought. By turning away the Tampa and detaining asylum seekers, John Howard is faithfully implementing the legacy of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Gorg Hegel and Jeremy Bentham. In the face of this, we have a lot of unlearning to do.
The suffering of Shayan Badraie in Villawood, the deaths of those who drowned off Indonesia last month, or Shahraz Kiane, the Pakistani man who died after setting fire to himself in protest outside Parliament house, in despair at DIMA's wicked and dishonest treatment of his family. Three cases among many which prove that, as a nation, we are bent on securing ourselves at the expense of others. We should also remember that the Howard Government has been doing this for a lot longer, whether it be in relation to the traditional owners at Jabiluka, their Wik legislation, the refusal to acknowledge and compensate the suffering of the stolen generations, and their support for mandatory sentencing. We are still governed by the spectre of the enemy without and the enemy within.
In the increasingly borderless world of globalisation our dominant images of sovereignty and security are failing us. Our security can no longer be thought in isolation from the security of others; our sovereignty can no longer be thought as a wall protecting us from the world, from our global responsibility for that world. This is particularly so in the case of asylum seekers, where there is an urgent need both to reform the repressive laws which govern their treatment within Australia, and to achieve regional and global solutions to what is one of the most pressing human security problems the world faces.
The treatment of asylum seekers cannot be left to the cynical whims of nation-states who champion the dissolution of borders for capital and trade, but then want to close them to people. We need a 'Kyoto Protocol' for asylum seekers, based firmly on the 1951 Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human rights, an agreement in which there is a global assumption of responsibility and the common dream of a world that is truly changed.
In Fear of Security: Australia's Invasion Anxiety (Pluto Press Australia, 2001) retails for $39.95
|
Under the watchful patronage of workplace relations minister Tony Abbot, the reporters displayed their leadership credentials by opting for stability in these uncertain times and returning the White Golliwog to the Sydney Morning Herald's Brad Norington.
Norington had to do little more than turn up to win the award - let's face it, the numbers on the round and constantly shrinking. But his work on maintaining the round and inviting an ever-expanding group of journeymen and misfits has ensured a stable support base. Some would accuse him of stacking - we prefer to look at it as bringing the appropriate talent into the round.
The awarding of the Golliwog statue capped off a controversial awards night, where votes were formally tallied for the first time in the night's five-year history.
This break with tradition threw up some controversial results, not the least the awarding of the Golden Thong to the SMH's Mark Robinson. After personally intervening to stave off the award last year for "dressing like a member of the ALP Right", Robbo was the popular choice for his all black and buzz-cut look, which left some opining he was poised to become new Police Minister Michael Costa's body double.
Best new talent was somewhat of a one-horse race, with ABC Radio's Liz Foscia taking the gong from the Telegraph's Anthony Peterson who didn't bother to turn up. The Golden Lemon for spin-doctoring was a more hotly contested affair, with Della's flak Andrew Plumley and the ALP's David Tansey for the non-release of Beazley's IR election policy both polling strongly. But it was the CFMEU's Phil Davey who walked away with the citrus for quitting Australia just as the brown matter began to fly over the Building Industry Royal Commission. Suffice to say the view was nice from Rio.
As for the Golden Egg-Beater it was a one-horse race, the Daily Telegraph's David Pemberthy blitzing the field with his front page piece on Michael Costa failing to attend his own swearing in. While Costa was present, Pemberthy wasn't ... In nominating himself Pembo conceded the story was a "bit iffy" and the voters agreed. He received his award from the AMWU's Doug Cameron, who made a late pitch himself for the trophy by, eh, manufacturing a story that Tony Abbott had never received a blue in boxing from Oxford - it was a half-blue and came after he defeated a ballet dancer!
After the awards our patron regaled us with an inspiring pr�cis of the industrial relations landscape, the evils of unionism and the unsung delights of negotiating directly with the employer. As the Mad Monk stumbled into the night we eagerly planned our work Monday, entering the editor's office to undercut the Transport Round and introduce the types of flexibility that would decimate Health. As a true fraternity however, we plotted collectively, recognizing the IR round will only ever be as strong as its weakest link. It was this reality that Abbott, a man who never covered an IR story from the grassroots will never appreciate - without the Camerons, the Combets, the Costas and the Creans, we are merely second rate political hacks. With a colourful union movement, we are a round.
Ian Chappell is sharp and combative; Bill Lawry boring as batshit, but thorough with it; Ravi Shastri brings a touch of class to the airwaves; and they don't come much drier or more opinionated than professional Yorkshireman Geoff Boycott.
Indian Navjot Sidhu, though, is the prosecution's star witness. While most of his compatriots speak eloquently, more flick of the wrist than full-faced drive, the former top-order dasher mixes eccentricity with liberal doses of barely-controlled aggression.
Sidhu who, if memory serves correctly, had his Test career briefly interrupted by the small matter of a murder charge, first made the ears prick up with his on-air reaction to the controversy swirling around Sachin Tendulkar, Mike Denness et al.
"It's time to put on the black gloves and slit a few throats," he told his trans-continental audience.
Mmm, really?
Having attracted attention he moved into stride, launching a string of verbal volleys. Included in his repertoire were the following ...
"Apple pie without cheese is like a kiss without a squeeze."
"He who wants a full farm must have an old cock and a young bull."
"A good face is worth half the dowry."
"The road to ruin is always in good repair."
"Straight as an arrow, crisp as a cracker."
"No root, no fruit."
If you're thinking our Navjot tends to the Freudian you won't be surprised by his retort to being chided for enthusiastically supporting the decision of cameramen to linger about the forms of scantily clad female spectators.
A fellow Indian suggested that, surely, beauty came from within.
"You have got to adore beauty but you don't want to adore a kidney or pancreas," Sidhu shot back, quick on his feet as ever.
Rarely had a lop-sided cricket match provided so much entertainment. It was almost good enough to recommend Foxtel on the strength of.
So where, in the name of all that's holy, does that leave Tony Greig? A fine allrounder in his day, he must be the exception that proves the rule.
Neale Towart |
Superannuation and Notice Payments by Natalie Gullifer
The question of whether employers should include superannuation when calculating payment in lieu of notice was until recently apparently a simple process. However some recent decisions and the concept of 'total employment cost' have clouded the area.
The author concludes that employers should base payouts on the total salary package including superannuation. The superannuation component should be sent to the employees super fund.
(Employment Law Bulletin; vol. 7, no. 6, 2001)
Corporate Collapses and Business Restructuring by Anthony Forsyth
The recent string of corporate collapses, restructuring decisions and relocation announcements in Australia raises important questions about the information disclosure and consultation obligations of employers. Forsyth looks at the inadequacies of current law and ACTU proposals to increase employee protection.
(CCH Australian Industrial Law Update; newsletter 10, October 2001)
Working Overseas and Australian Industrial Law Jurisdiction
An employee was deemed to have access to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission in regard to an unfair dismissal claim. The original decision by a single Commissioner was that they did not have jurisdiction because the industry did not have sufficient connection with WA as most work was performed in either Singapore or France. The Full Bench agreed that the work was performed outside their jurisdiction but that the work, the subject of the contract of employment, was performed by an employee in an industry having a substantial and real connection with WA.
Parker v Transfield WACt Appeal (Kennedy J, McKechnie J, Hasluck, J) 7/8/01.
(CCH Australian Industrial Law Update; newsletter 10, October 2001)
Genetic Testing and Australia's Anti-discrimination laws - Do They Pass the Test? by Joan Napoli
The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has raised as an issue for discussion the effectiveness of current anti-discrimination laws, privacy and other workplace laws to protect workers from discrimination or disadvantage based on genetic make-up or predisposition to disease.
In a recently released discussion paper entitled 'Protection of Human Genetic Information', the ALRC highlighted potential concerns about the use of human genetic information in a range of areas, including employment.
The ALRC and the Australian Health Ethics Committee have been asked by the federal government to consider what sort of regulation might be needed in relation to human genetic samples and information to protect privacy, provide protection from discrimination, and ensure standards of ethical conduct. The ALRC is seeking public comment on the issues raised in the discussion paper.
http://www.workplaceinfo.com.au
Court Opens Way for Casuals To Claim Unfair Dismissal
Casuals will be able to make unfair dismissal claims after three months rather than 12, following a Federal Court interpretation of the WR Act and Regulations.
The court found invalid two related regulations limiting the ability of casuals to pursue unfair dismissal claims:
� Regulation s30B(1)(d) which excluded casuals engaged for a short period of time, within the meaning of Regulations 30B(3); and
� Regulation 30B(3), which said casuals were taken to be engaged for a short period unless they were engaged on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months and thad a reasonable expectation of continuing employment.
�
Justices Murray Wilcox, Shane Marshall and Leslie Katz said that Regulation 30B(1) went beyond the bounds of the regulation-making power conferred on the Governor-General by s170CC(1)(c) of the WR Act.
The court's decision in the case, Hamzy v Tricon International Restaurants, means that casuals can seek an unfair dismissal remedy after three months, rather than the 12 months that applied under the quashed regulations.
http://www.workplaceexpress.com.au
Work Experience and Award Wages
Judge Parsons of the South Australian Industrial Relations Court found that a student who started unpaid work experience was entitled to more than $12,000 from her employer as reimbursement for underpaid work.
The cellarperson was required to attend 240 hours work experience within the wine industry as part of her Wine Marketing Course. This work could be paid or unpaid and was to be arranged by the student at times that did not conflict with their other studies.
After working about 168 hours with another company, she approached the defendant, then trading as Skye Cellars, about the possibility of working for them for the remaining 72 hours.
The cellarperson said she worked for the defendant for the ensuing eight months, working most Saturdays for nine hours a day and full time for the last 13 weeks with the employer. This was regardless of already meeting her course requirements, and because she believed it was expected of her to be there on the specified days.
During this time, the employer paid the cellarperson around $50 a day, without being told what the payment was for except that it was a contribution to her travel expenses.
The decision calls for employers to be aware of the award wage associated with the tasks any kind of employee carries out at all times.
Cossich v G Rossetto and Co Pty Ltd CAN 007 611 494 (T/as Skye Cellars) [2001] SAIRC 37 (26 October 2001)
http://www.workplaceexpress.com.au
Victoria To Stamp Out Child Exploitation
Employment for Victorian children under the age of 15 is likely to be more strongly regulated, following the release of a report by the Victorian Government.
Under the proposed regulations, employers who exploit children's services may face jail terms and fines if they breach the Community Services Act 1970, which currently regulates child employment.
It says the Act had failed to adequately protect minors against risks in employment.
The report, produced by IR Victoria with assistance from other State agencies, aims to review current regulation of child employment and to produce a policy that can be adopted by other regulators which want to stamp out child exploitation.
http://www.workplaceexpress.com.au
OHS and the Changes to the Privacy Act (Cth) by James Hutchinson
Outlines the obligations for private sector employers of the new privacy legislation. Compliance with the legislation and OHS record keeping and exemptions are discussed here. Personal information in regard to employee health and general OHS performance are aspects employers need to be aware of.
(CCH Occupational Health & Safety Update; newsletter 10, October 2001)
Making Globalisation Work for People
A Global Unions Day of Action on 9th November 2001 demanded a reform to the World Trade Organisation and its policies through action based in workplaces. The principle was "Making Globalisation Work for People." Trade Union World has a special section on unions and international workers rights. The articles include demands to reform the IMF and the World Bank, criticism of the WTO's choice of Qatar as a meeting place, global action on AIDS, rights of workers under economic reform in Burkino Faso and Rwanda, China's entry to the WTO, export processing zones, and Maquiladoras in Guetamala.
(Trade Union World; no. 11, November 2001)
by Paul Smith
Kevin Rudd said on the ABC's Insiders program last week that Labor's principles stripped down to two words "competition and compassion". Rudd then reduced the difference between Labor and "Tony Abbott's mob" as "they are on about a competitive Australia but without the compassion. Our tradition is to embrace those two themes."
Rudd's claim that it is Labor tradition to support a dog eat dog economic and social system and compassionately throwing the losers a bone is the spin this "reformer" thinks get him and Labor elected to government.
Labor needs "to pitch our message to the broad centre of Australian Politics," according to Rudd. Our problem is not with this obvious fact but the message that Rudd wants to convey
In Labor tradition, the message has always been about the collective good of the majority in society .
According Rudd, the message should be to ditch the common good for "commitment to reward for individual effort." in order to win what he calls the centre
Rudd spoke against the current position of unions in the party saying "we need to look at 60/40 and we need to change it" arguing that "we need to do as part of conveying a strong symbol ... of what we're on about in the ALP of today."
The Rudd spin is that Unions are a symbol of outdated values and therefore Labor must show that it must reject these values to win the centre that allegedly values individual reward. This is another way of advocating greed.
That unions have higher approval ratings than the ALP and complaints by voters that they perceived little difference between the parties are facts that Labor needs to listen to rather than the spin of professional politicians like Rudd.
Spin doctors like Rudd, with their small target strategy of avoiding debating the differences between the parties, cost Labor the last election. But the solution is not to remove the difference. What Labor needs are Leaders of substance who can connect with working people by articulating a message that is more than a pale imitation of the Liberal Party view of society.
It is worth recalling what Ben Chifley, a leader of substance, had to say
"I try to think of the Labor movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody's pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective - the light on the hill"
Labor is about offering a better vision of how things could be for the great majority of Australians. It does not need to be reformed into a slightly compassionate Liberal Party to win over some imaginary centre. It's tradition has been to define the political debate by offering its better vision- its light on the hill.
We don't blame Rudd but his deprived background. His previous careers as diplomat, a public service chief and international corporate consultant did not give him the opportunity to learn about struggle and solidarity.
A week in the toolshed will give him his chance. We will give him the biographies of Chifley by Fin Crisp and David Day to read while he's there .Undoubtedly he will emerge from the shed a better man.
Look out for Rudd the Red.
© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW URL: http://workers.labor.net.au/121/print_index.htmlLast Modified: 15 Nov 2005 [ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ] LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW |