Dismembered
Industrial relations - - Posted on April, 4 at 11:59 pm by Gianna
Union membership is down. This had the Liberals almost salivating with excitement in the news this morning. Predictably, they claim the statistics are an “endorsement” of their IR reform, a claim which Labor attempted to neutralise by pointing out that anti-IR sentiment is not limited to unionised workers.
The unions claim that AWAs together with the Government’s protracted scare campaign are destroying them. Kim Beazley was quoted as “telling the Herald earlier this year he feared for Labor’s future if it lost the next election because the new workplace laws would destroy the ALP’s union base”. But how could Beazley have predicted his successor would redefine the party’s base, in a similar way that John Howard drastically redefined his party’s base by lassooing in “his” battlers?
It’s hard to determine the reasons workers have “walked away from” or “turned their backs on” unions, as Joe Hockey spins it. Did they walk or were they pushed? Maybe the Government’s scare campaign did have some effect. But if workers were pushed, it’s a false dawn for the Liberals. If workers felt pushed to move onto an AWA, this will not magically translate to support for the Liberals and IR changes; they may even be more embittered towards John Howard. The question remains, how much of a choice do workers really have in signing AWAs? That’s not answered by merely pointing out they’ve signed them.
Union membership numbers alone don’t tell us very much about Labor’s chance of winning government. Labor’s base has certainly changed from the traditional unionised base of the past. Polls hint that modern Labor has broad appeal. There are plenty of Labor voters who support unions in principle, even when they are not themselves a member. It’s also possible the figures are to some extent reflecting attrition, with the lack of growth a consequence of a changed industrial landscape, one with less blue collar workers and far more service industries.
If there’s a shrinking number of unionised voters out there, it means Labor’s public support must increasingly be coming from non-unionised workers. That’s why Howard’s worried. Labor is no longer just “the party of the evil unions”. It’s plain vanilla mainstream now, and the Liberals have just been bragging how they own that.
Posted in Industrial relations |
April 5th, 2007 at 8:55 am
I’m sure a lot of people have stopped joining unions because WorkChoices has made it so hard for unions to provide any useful services. That was the intention of course.
If the state government banned roadside car service people would leave the NRMA in droves but it would be a bit rich for the government to turn round and claim that meant people didn’t want roadside service.
One result, however, as I noted yesterday, is that things like minimum wages will become mainstream party-political issues. People won’t accept the Fair Pay Commission process if they can’t see anyone representing their interests in it.
April 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Call to arms!
So, to fight the shrinking unions and Labor, the PM wants big business to fund an ad campaign (he’s even highlighted the issues for them).
Why do labor get roasted about their union membership and support, and nothing said about the Liberals with their corporate sponsorship and funding?
Business rebuffs Howard over IR ad blitz:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21508205-601,00.html
April 5th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Well a lot does get said actually but I know what you mean.
It’s because the Howard time machine that was whisking us back to the 1950s played up … you know how these things never work properly … and we’re back in the 1920s, where the business of Australia is business (yes I know it was said about America first just humour me).
April 5th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I’m glad that someone has finally bought up union membership in a reasonable discussion. The fact that Labor has such strong support from outside the union movement should be the real story here, but the mainstream media seems to be too thick or lazy to point it out.
Labor is in a once in a lifetime position to recast itself as a broad based progressive political party, the union movement will hopefully have enough sense to embrace this change. The other advantage that Labor has is they can learn from both the mistakes of British Labour and the Democrats’ revival this past year as they re-discovered progressive politics.
I believe that Howard realises this and his fear of losing power will see him and his cabinet becoming more and more shrill over the next nine months.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:46 am
“I’m sure a lot of people have stopped joining unions because WorkChoices has made it so hard for unions to provide any useful services.”
No doubt. My workplace has THOUSANDS or unionised workers but you barely ever see a union rep or hear about union business. The younger blokes, understandably, have no idea about the union-won pay and conditions they are enjoying today. After years of jumping through all the company hoops without question and don’t see any value in joining up when they come out of their time.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Unionism and feminism have some common ground in this one.
Alert- sweeping generalisation about to be made - but no female under 30 UNDERSTANDS what her feminist mothers and grandmothers and greatgrandmothers had to fight for.
Tell a mobile-toting, Barina driving, corporate-tight-skirt wearing Young Miss that she cant do something - cant study a paticular course or take a particular job and she’ll laugh at you. Try to say that L-A-W-S existed to insist women leave the workforce on marriage or had to have a man sign a bank loan or some contract for her - she’ll sneer “whatever” and look at you like you’ve walked straight off the set of the Biggest Loser.
So too with Young Union. Anyone under 30, just expects their employer will abide by OHS, fair pay and the box and dice of union-won conditions and agreements.
I think it is also part of the conservatism of Gen Y.
They pay uni fees, they accept the user-pays principle.
Too busy working their shift at Maccas and Starbucks to join on-campus student groups - so no compulsory student unionism.
Provision of the uni bar and the caffeteria have all been put to tender to business - more efficient - than in-house student run services…
And then unions are reaping a decade or more of bloated inaction.
My previous employer had a systemic inequity between directly comparable divisions - ie. due to acquisitions one division was working on a historic award of low pay and poor set of conditions while 3kms away people were doing an indentical job with identical skill sets and required proficency and qualifications, but were paid hansomely.
Every couple of years a new union rep would blow through, listen to our case, say they needed to research it, and would never be seen again.
The company had a “take it or you leave” attitude, so despite paying union fees, the situation continued for more than 20 years (long before my time there and now after it). Being in a location with limited jobs - people always felt a paypacket - even if it was earnt under inequitable conditions within the same company - was better than no paypacket.
Unions havent delivered for a long time now - so no one feels motivated to feed them.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I was surprised by the figures as I thought the union movement was winning greater support (and indeed the polls suggest it is far from the bete noir it was).
I have not studied the figures closely but are we seeing an across-the-board decline in private sector membership or is it largely due to a change in the structure of economic activity (e.g. low-unionised industries and low- unionized states like WA growing faster than unionized ones)? Have any sectors been able to increase membership?
April 5th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Labor is no longer just “the party of the evil unions”.
I think that’s buying into some Howard mythmaking there anyway. Labor’s been more than that for a very long time.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Unions will always be active, albeit suppressed right now. They are, and have been, the root of revolution, rights, and conditions for working men and woman the world over. Ever since the Industrial revolution they have become a force to be reckoned with, rights and conditions were hard fought for, but ultimately, as they must, they won out.
The reasons for victory were many. Industries of the time were labour intensive they needed “every swinging dick” that could be mustered to operate machinery. Now-days, industry is more automated and your right “Blue Collar” while still relevant is on the decline. But decline for manual labour in city’s for less educated people will not change there opinion, or for whom they vote for, but rather, reinforce a feeling of hopelessness and isolation, a feeling of being second class.
The lack of “Blue collar” employment will only reinforce a labour vote to these people, what option has been given? The dole, working at Mc’ Donald’s for 12 bucks an hour, training schemes that are irrelevant but make a government look good.
The fight for fair pay and conditions, I believe, will be transfer upon the next rung in the order of things; they should be expected to handle the burden. “White collar” will struggle to maintain rights and conditions, but the common cause and the foundation will always be there and can be relied upon for support in the future. “Blue collar” workers are the guts of working people, the root, firmly connected to the earth and possess a humility that big business is sorely lacking.
The unions themselves may have lost touch with there original agenda’s and appeal , the reasons why they had become so fundamental to working people in the first place. They need to get back to looking after our society. This involves trade off’s and recognition of a changing world and employment landscape. Working with industry to improve training and individual development, and forming a relation with government that is constructive and as none threatening as possible.
There is a comparison to be made between this governments campaign backers and union backing for labour. And it’s a completely relevant comparison to make. Basically the support is of the same nature. One group against another, both with vested outcomes in mind, control and power. The difference is in ideology of the supporter. One is propped by big Business and is unashamedly linked toward an advancement of the bank balance, while the other (one would hope) is concerned in the advancement of people’s standard’s of living and social harmony.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Fred,
I think it is pretty obvious isn’t it? Check out the Independent Contractor Laws, and check out the capacity of employers to deny employees the right to collectively bargain.
The wonder is that so many people stick stubbornly to union membership, not that there has been a drop in membership. These laws, as you well know, (or ought to) are in line with what the Economist magazine cheerfully described as union bashing, (their words, and no use of inverted commas either). It is interesting indeed that small ‘liberals in the post war period cheerfully counted the existence of independent organisation of employees, and the right to collectively bargain, as among the gold standard hall marks of liberal democracies. Now we find that liberals of all stripes apparently, endorse the new gold standard for liberal democracies. No collective bargaining, and no independent employee organisation because apparently the new dispensation ensures that there can never be any conflict over relative shares of output.
Do people actually believe this guff, or are we forever doomed to simply repeat history every time a bunch of semi educated ratbags get hold of the ship of state? Do people honestly think this merry go round will go on forever? Does anybody stop to think that just because people have no effective say at work, it means they don’t have a view about it, and won’t cast their vote? Just what planet of unbounded contempt do policy makers in this country live on?
You can achieve unionisation levels of around effectively zero percent if you like. Just ask the Chinese working class. On second thoughts….
April 5th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I have a young friend, full-time university student (smart and good-looking but very thin and harried) trying to make ends meet by working in restaurants and cafes at nights and weekends.
She had some good shifts recently at a restaurant but the place closed down and she is now looking for work again. She has been responding to signs in windows of cafes looking for casual labour, but three times now she has been told that she must work a three hour shift FOR NOTHING so they can see whether she is OK for the job. After she does the work for nothing (and she is a good worker), she is then told that they don’t need her, and the next day I see another young face waiting the tables.
Looks like a nasty scam to me and it seems many restaurants and cafes are on to it, using young girls up at the rate of knots and paying nothing. Nice way to do business under SerfChoices. Its called slave labour where I come from.
Does anyone know offhand whether this practice is more widespread than my admittedly narrow experience, and whether indeed it really is a deliberate scam. Or am I imagining things?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The ‘third way’ & ‘triangulation’ are probably themes & strategies looking pretty good to Labor right now. Allegiance to each & every Union is just plain foolish…they’re despised by some of the Police Union bosses…the Timber Unions are doing them no favors…& the Mineral’s Unions could be problematic when it comes to shifting to Green & Renewable Energy (tho we’re hearing some reassuring & realistic speak from some).
Politics is mutating w/ the New World demands…the name LABOR reprents more than just the Unionised workforce…in many ways it always has…Whitlam waved the flag for the disenfranchised & those lacking opportunities for affordable education, health & upward mobility…Hawke & Keating ensured another shift w/ pragmatic privitisation & de-regulation policies, cost shifting, future proofing w/ Superannuation…all forced by the demands for Globalisation, ‘individual responsibility’ & economic efficiency & accountability’…& now Rudd looks to Clinton & Blair & Helen Clark & Paul Martin to name a few for inspiration & policy development…& plenty of Policy Institutes, Foundations, blogs & brain storming ‘think tanks’ are available for perusal & gathering of policy ideas…
but in the long run Rudd must assure the majority of voters that he is capable, dilligent, smart, intelligent, quick on his feet, compassionate, pragmatic, imaginative, innovative, trustworthy w/in reasonable parameters, rational, good humoured, a team player, wise, realistic, strong willed, a problem solver, motivating, inspirational, earnest, has nouse, is flexible, listening, fit, healthy, generally pleasant to look at…& so on & so on…a Man for all Seasons in the era of rampant materialism, struggling environment, hi-tech addiction, personal politics, ‘gotya’ media, ‘bogus wars’, ‘choice in services’ & celebrity idolisation.
Must be bloody exhausting.
Methinks going by the above list of characteristics John Winston Howard the 1st has got some REAL problems.
& by bringing is transcending the & LIBERAL are becoming outdated…& definitely innapropriate
April 5th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
It is very widespread Grace. What a lovely pass we have come to. Workers donating their labour for ‘free’ on approval as it were, just to ensure that employers are sufficiently incentivated to do them the favour of using their time and labour to make a profit.
Does anybody honestly think that people don’t resent this kind of high handed treatment? Does the government really think peole are so deferential that they will put up with this shite?
April 5th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Grace, luv the comment…hate the policy.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
nope, not tortured syntax…a rough draft w/ incomplete ideas that accidentally made it onto the page…just in case you thought i was on acid…lol
April 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I just wonder whether unions are doing enough work in the recruiting area of what should be their strong base. Maybe not cottoning on to workers reluctance to fork out cash, regularly, when many are uncertain about paying the rent or buying food?
Casualisation is rampant and these ‘underemployed’ should be targeted as members instead of abandoned because they do not have a full time job and can’t afford unmeanstested fees.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Thanks Aussie Sheila, I had not come across it before. Now that I know its a deliberate scam I am really angry. Its very hard to stand by and watch this young woman being trashed like this, but there is not much I can do without making it even harder for her. Guess we will have to wait for the election.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
BTW, “shite” is my favourite word these days.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Some will become so rich they won’t give a sh*t ever…some will get ill & learn that a safety net works better if it ain’t fall of holes…some will marry ambitious, well off hubbies & find pleasure in not givin’ a sh*t, in fact they’ll flaunt it like designer clothes…oblivious to everyone’s needs but those at the marina & the country club…then there are those who will be stood over by the boss, whipped into action &/or directed by anal security guards to ‘the exit’ if she dares be resistant…& she might become as depressed as the overworked Mum whose husband loves his mistress more than her & Peter Costello’s kids, the one who’s told to keep working full-time & let ABC Learning Centre do her duties for her…these might actually realise that Workchoice sucks…or decide to re-educate & upon finding that pathway so financially bankrupting, they sit back frustrated, demoralised & exhausted in a cosy chair, trying to find peace in some soothing music…
& HAVE A DREAM…that recalls the warnings & harrowing stories of their grandmothers…& upon that realisation become determined to FIGHT, change the system…seek answers…& others of the same persuasion…who might tell them to rush to the book shop to buy the ‘Second Sex’ by Simone De Beauvoir…or some other trip down REALITY lane
…or maybe they just download it…or order it on the Net.
Workchoice looks good to some…but in the end the piper will come a calling.
Think Hurricane Katrina…but in the workplace. I’ve lived it.
Good stuff Innocent Dingo.
That’s right NG…the very people these faux ‘free marketeers’ & Corporate lackeys hope will forget to enroll once they find new digs…just like the work abused, tech addicted, ‘assailed by ads & sexual tittilation’ youth…these new election reforms are bloody dangerous & have the same stench of trickery as the Workchoice reforms, AWB scandal & ‘children overboard’ claims.
A reminder to sign the petition:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/DontLetThemStopYouFromVoting
Tho I haven’t been able to access GetUp for the past ten minutes…probably been sabotaged by the minions of Mordor.
Unfortunately Aussie Shiela I’ve seen people take off their shirts & be whipped all across the Western world, time & time again…all because of ‘constructed’ recessions, media propaganda, a distorted sense of ‘work ethic’ & ‘hard yakka’ in the community, health problems, debts, corrupt politicians…& a cornucopia of other reasons. The CON is more easily perpetuated than you’d think.
Great comments AS.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
[...] a short break from her nude self-portait project, Gianna visits Surfdom to unravel the causes and consequences of declining union numbers. If workers felt pushed to move onto an AWA, this will not magically translate to support for the [...]
April 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Heard a senior AWU rep on the radio this morning… he reckons that the “density” (unfortunate word) of union membership is high as it ever was. That is, the percentage of paid-up union memebers in industries that CAN be unionised has not changed. It’s just that the structure of the workforce has changed.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Just overheard a worker at my work saying their husband was asked to sign an AWA with a clause prohibiting the taking of holidays during school holiday periods. He has two young children. If this is progress, we really have to rethink why we are alive and what we want from our “societi” - or has that been banned for the sake of progress.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
It’s bloody hard to recruit under WorkChoices, when a union rep can’t even enter the premises without the employer’s permission. They have to adopt the same tactics as people trying to sell life insurance or a new mobile phone plan.
But the ‘are they doing enough’ perspective says a lot I think … unions are widely regarded as independent organisations that have to persuade workers to join. The notion that a union is a collective organisation run by members never really developed in most Australian industries. The exceptions, like commercial construction and the public service, are the places where unions still have strong support.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Malcolm Frazer said the other night while being interviewed something along the lines of. Thought must be given to the negative impact on our society that the constant baying for money will create. And that sometimes money isn’t worth the expense. Well it was something along those lines.
Working for nothing has been going on for a long time now, just ask middle management.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Howard laments that scrapping AWAs/Workchoices will be a backward move. Actually, it is Howard that has taken us backwards. Not back to his beloved 1950s, but to the 1850s, when employment was based on the common law Master-Servant relationship. Workers were entirely at the whim of the employer.
It was this environment under the Industrial Revolution that gave rise to the establishment of unions and the Labor Party, here and the UK, and the whole raft of employment protection mechanisms we take (took?) for granted.
It may take time, perhaps a major downturn in the economy, before people realise what has been lost and we start the whole process of building up workers rights all over again.
Howard also goes on about the low level of industrial disputes. It is quite a while since I studied any industrial psychology, but if I recall, suppressing conflict in the workplace does not make it go away - it shows up in other ways such as absenteeism, turnover, low morale, reduced productivity and even sabotage. It may not be a coincidence that productivity in Australia is at best stagnant.
April 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Grace Pettigrew - yes, it’s happening elsewhere. There was a fairly notorious case of a local juicebar. Disgusting, isn’t it?
April 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
some of the problem lies with those sponging bastards who are quite happy not to join the union in their workplace and claim they don’t believe in unions but then get to enjoy all the advantages that those who are members have earned by paying their weekly dues. despicable hypocrisy and cutting their own throats in the long run.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Christine,I have young adult children and I believe that the practice of working a few hours for nothing has been encouraged by the employment agencies for job seekers - offer yourself for free so that they can assess you, and you might just get the job. This exploitation just angers me.
On the subject of union membership by Fred. I’m a member of the nurses union QNU. In 2005-’06, QNU membership stood at 34,060 and they said it was steadily increasing (don’t know how many there would be if professional indemnity wasn’t offered through membership).
I wonder if the numbers for unions are accurate, I know that mine has had a campaign (for IR purposes they say) to have us pay by credit card or direct debit, rather than payroll deduction - is this a feasible strategy? Do you think that union numbers would be hidden by this method? Are membership numbers legally required to be public?
Also have to say in regards to younger workers
April 5th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
sorry. I seem to be having a glitch where I posted abruptly mid sentence and the remainder has just disappeared (might be in the filter, I did say a little swear word!)
cheers
April 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Here’s the rest, dunno what’s happening!
…Also have to say in regards to younger workers
April 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Duh, it’s the b*tch word! (there’s another in the spam filter)I give up if this gets trapped too!
…Also have to say in regard to younger workers
April 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Yeah well I’m in the Lawyers’ Union, comrades. What’s with the rest of yous blackshirts?
That’s an excellent post G. It’s probably a combination of the laws and the current culture. Many these days would celebrate the behaviour duncan massy speaks of above as the sort of thing that wins competitive reality TV shows.
Also just went round to your own site, G, and since comments there are not working would just like to note PHWOAR! Hubba hubba! [pant pant] A-woooooooooo!
April 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
PS: That’s bizarre kittylitter, I write fuck all the time.
Don’t mind me folks, nearly a long weekend, I’m getting a bit giddy.
April 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
It must be something else Sean, there’s a para trapped twice, could it be s*ck?, can’t think of anything else, I don’t know what I’ve written that is so disgusting, reprehensible or vulgar!
April 5th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Being a member of the lawyers’ union myself, what gives me the shits about this whole debate is how Howard and his mob of ratbags have hijacked the terminology so that the word ‘union’ is demonised and marginalised, when in reality it can equally apply to any organisation. Big business unions, doctors’ unions, lawyers unions etc. etc.
Why only last week fucking Virginia fucking Trioli was interrogating Sharron Burrows on the dreaded union influence on the Labor Party. Burrows should have told Trioli to get stuffed, and advised her that she’d take her question seriously when the Liberals were similarly questioned on their union influence - the union of big business.
End of rant!
April 5th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
And repeating almost verbatim the bullsh*t story that was put out about the German animal right’s figure who was accused of demanding the killing of a baby polar bear…a bunch of lies & distortions to make all those who care about animal rights look like fanatics & extremists…to further marginalise them…and in turn disparage the Green Party by association. They MUST be worried about the Green vote.
Trioli was right up there w/ hyperbole fanatics Laws, Jones & Bolt on this topic…and once the accusations were proved to be ‘bogus’ & the comments taken out of context we get Media Watch taking her to task…only to receive a reply that was both snotty & pathetic. She definitely is ripe for a job w/ Rupert.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Completely agree with that.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Comment by grace pettigrew:
She has been responding to signs in windows of cafes looking for casual labour, but three times now she has been told that she must work a three hour shift FOR NOTHING so they can see whether she is OK for the job.
For your information this kind of cheating and breaking the law existed even before 1996 when Labor was in Government. The Government inspectors used to investigate such rorts and recovered the worker’s due wages. Now the Office of Workplace Services (OWS) is an extension of the old inspectorate. It provides similar services with very high success rates. Go to the OWS to lodge a claim if you feel ripped off. Don’t blame everything on WorkChoices. There is always a law breaker for every legislation.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Nasking, they are truly a pack of c-words. I think you’d enjoy Justice Sully’s farewell to the bar:
April 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Kittylitter’s the only one who’s come close to explaining membership decline.
The reason unions in the state public sector are promoting direct debit right now is in anticipation of WorkChoices. Where WorkChoices applies now, employers ARE NOT ALLOWED to deduct union fees from the payroll.
It does not surprise me that 130,000 apathetic workers have failed to move from payroll deductions to direct debit under the new system. Direct debit’s a whole lot of extra paperwork for people with better things to do!
April 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
yes, the dominant media groups demonstrate such adoration for The Greens because they know how predisposed they are to continuing the current media ownership laws…it’s all hugs & kisses.
In many ways I agree w/ the Judge…but as for dear Rupert, he just can’t help himself…he loves to make kindly visits to World Leaders & spread his words of wisdom:
(source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K._Rupert_Murdoch)
so glad he doesn’t have any influence over Government. It’s just all about money….:)
April 6th, 2007 at 3:24 am
“I think what’s important is that the world respects us, much more important than they love us … There is going to be collateral damage. And if you really want to be brutal about it, better we get it done now than spread it over months,” he said.
Im gona be sick, excuse me.
April 6th, 2007 at 5:23 am
It’s terribly sad when rich western nations dictate industrial relation reform that stifles development of poorer nations, while at the same time fragmenting there own democracies to compete against a foregone conclusion. Nations in our region have been abused far too long; they have been treated like crap, what hypocrisy. We hold the flag and rally behind it, but for what purpose, our own short term enrichment?
Peoples working in foreign lands for next to nothing at present, given time, will demand the same freedoms, wages and conditions as we once enjoyed, and good luck to them. It’s fruitless in the long term for Australia to try to compete without excellent relations and trusting bonds. Our only natural legacy courtesy of mother earth can be found in the ground. It’s our strength, our only strength at present, for we have bugger all else to offer, nothing to give, no meaningful example to bestow upon others, nothing for them to cultivate or respect, no compassion, understanding, remorse, nor goodwill. Basically were fucked, excuse me. We (Australia) used to have a good name, courtesy of labour politics, and a good deal of manners toward others in our region.
I’m just wondering whether they will have time for this country when the shoes on the other foot, when they possess the same economic muscle, and they will. As we all know, even the Roman Empire was conquered along with its states. I feel the IR laws are a desperate attempt to prolong the inevitable and make us more competitive against what, disadvantaged people? People who are struggling to attain a standard, something approaching our way of life! Should we hold them down, should we bust our own arses to keep them that way, at least for a time? We need to help them attain a similar standard of living, as we enjoy; we need to be more generous without token charity.
These IR laws are a short term solution for a government who is ignorant and uncommunicative, set on trashing our national identity for short term gain. Is this good Mr Howard? Are not all nations deserving of our standard of living, or are they simply to be sucked dry to maintain our own? I’m willing to lose a little. It’s better than slave labour.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Yes, that’s widespread at my work too.
Then, when they have a problem, they want to quickly join up, just so the union (collective) power & money, fights for them, and they don’t have to use their own resources.
Matt, why can’t my workplace deduct union fees for me, if I request it of them? They deduct for super etc. This is impinging on my rights to have my pay deducted as I see fit! Seems that Howard is deliberately trying to starve the unions of funds. It’s not his decision to make, whether I’m in a union or not, it’s mine!
I hope that fees can’t be directed from business coffers into the employer unions, make them donate as private individuals.
Also, call me cynical, but I just don’t trust business. They were making public consumption statements yesterday re not rushing to donate to Howard’s IR campaign, but I think that was just so they didn’t anger workers. I think they’ll be rallying for the call to arms, and funding on the quiet and sneaky, whilst making public statements to the contrary. That’s what they do!
April 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
The rationale behind workchoices was twofold: Knacker the Unions and abolish the effects of the Harvester decision of 1907, the fundamental basis of the pre-Workchoices Industrial regime for nearly 100 years.
So, yeah, the clock was turned-back. Not to 1850, but to 1906.
This had been a wet-dream of the members of the HR Nicholls Society (including our very own Federal Treasurer) for many years.
The difference between now and then is that in 1906 Australia had a highly unionised workforce. The Labour Party had recently been formed after the Shearer’s strikes of the 1890’s and rural workers, transport, waterside and manufacturing employees were all highly unionised. Australia had already had it’s first Federal Labour Government (Watson, 1904). Orgainsed Labour had power and was certainly feeling its oats.
Now, of course, the workforce is mostly non-unionised and Oraginsed Labour has only a fraction of the power it wielded then.
Workchoices has certainly achieved its second aim: terms and conditions are being wound back and, judging from some of the above comments, rampant exploitation is the name of the game.
It has failed, so far, to achieve the first. Portions of the workforce remain highly uniuonised (eg mining, construction) and the unions covering those sectors are certainly nowhere near broken. (Try telling the CFMEU that it’s a toothless spent force). While it is true that other sectors (eg, hospitality) are barely unionised at all, the sectors with poor Union membership are mostly sectors that were never historically highly Unionised in any event.
The real story with the decline in the percentage of Australian workers signing-up to Union membership, in my view, is the essential death of Australian manufacturing and the fundamental changes this has caused to the nature of the workforce.
When the manufacturing sector cashed-in its chips and went off-shore, union membership took a nose-dive. Formerly unionised manufacturing workers either moved into the non-unionised service sector or left the workforce.
So basically, as I see it, declining Union membership is a result of fundamental economic restructuring, rather than anything else.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Evan that’s only a partial explanation at best. Union density has gone from over 50% to 20% in 25 years. Industry restructuring can’t account for all of it.
Even to the extent that it does account for the decline it doesn’t really explain it. Why are some industries unionised and others not? Clearly the answer is not that employers in some industries are nicer than others. There’s been lots of research into the reasons and they are complex. One is that we have become a more individualistic society and are less inclined to join anything … community groups, churches, political parties or unions. However that’s just one factor, there are lots of others.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:17 am
“For your information this kind of cheating and breaking the law existed even before 1996 when Labor was in Government. The Government inspectors used to investigate such rorts and recovered the worker’s due wages. Now the Office of Workplace Services (OWS) is an extension of the old inspectorate. It provides similar services with very high success rates. Go to the OWS to lodge a claim if you feel ripped off. Don’t blame everything on WorkChoices. There is always a law breaker for every legislation.”
Nice but…..
While OWS is at it, will they return penalty rates, Hours and other worker’s entitlements that work choices and other shitty (penetrated) retail union’s have ripped off hard working people. Indeed!
April 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am
My daughter (19 years, student) is in hospitality for the moment. The place she works at will roster her to work a four hour shift. During that short shift, whenever it gets quiet, they send her on a break for 30mins. Then she comes back to work in the busy period again.
So, she takes the trouble to catch public transport into the city, about 1hr 50mins for return journey. She then has four hours of hanging around at work, and ends up only getting paid for a total of three hours, after having two 30min. unpaid “breaks”.
April 8th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Kitty it’s not uncommon for the ‘working poor’ in the USA to work several broken shifts over the course of a day: 2 hours on, then 2 off, then another 1.5 hours on followed by a 3 hour break and so on. All perfectly legal. They basically live in their cars because it’s not worth driving backwards and forwards to home (if they have one).
Then there are the bag packers in US supermarkets who don’t get paid at all … they do get to keep their tips though. Well it’s performance-based pay, isn’t it? Encourages good customer service.
April 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
(Roy Orbison)
Yep Ken, the Government are paving the way for Nirvana in the workplace:
A mentality coming to a workplace near you…soon.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Too true Nasking!
Ken, it just fills me with disgust and anger, if business performs like this now, what’s it going to be like when more of these ‘freedom to exploit’ laws are ushered in? And there is more to come.
I just hope that everyone in Australia who has a child turning 18 this year, convinces them to enrol to vote ASAP, it’s imperative, and in their own best interest.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
(I’m sorry for the delay in responding to comments. Easter means daycare closes so I had a three year old by my side 24/7 for a week, which is a bit full-on.)
Thanks for the comments. Here’s my further if rushed thoughts.
Agree with Dave from Albury (and not just because he pays me a compliment!)
Labor is in a once in a lifetime position to recast itself as a broad based progressive political party.
And I think the most effective thing Labor did was bring in a leader who’s like a nicer version of John Howard and someone who manages to look less radical than the PM.
Re union membership- mars, makes me think. Can we support unions without being a member, and if so, how? I think most of us just don’t know, and maybe there’s a failure of union marketing. Another area which I think is little understood (I get confused about it at times too) is the whole area of underemployment. I think this could take a bit more explaining given endless Liberal boasts about unemployment rates.
I agree with Innocent Dingo that gains are taken for granted. The question, with feminism, is whether that expectation is the definition of success for the movement, ungrateful as it seems. With IR, doncha think individuals begin to notice when certain standards and expectations are not met? I do. That’s when it will bite. Will this happen in time for the election? Maybe not.
The ultimate questions for me remain: if unions were to die, could Labor survive? And, should unions exist, do they have an intrinsic value, meaning the Liberals are wrong to try to kill them off. Is there always going to be a place for them to exist to fight for workers, to ‘keep the bastards honest’? If workers’ unions are widely accepted to be important as a check-and-balance against the unfairly weighted, greatly funded, almost unlimited power of big business and an intrinsic value–and polls suggest there is this perception among non-unionised voters–then Labor should turn around and vocally embrace them, embrace Labor’s history as being for the worker, as part of their anti-IR strategy. Labor shouldn’t act embarrassed about its past. It should celebrate it, remind Howard’s “battlers” that Labor is on their side. Labor needs to reclaim the unions, loud and proud, and account for any instances were unions have earnt bad press. I also think, contrary to Liberal Party hopes, future Labor candidates like Greg Combet and Bill Shorten are attractive to the public, because they come across as highly rational and fair-minded individuals. So, does the union downsize and some of its visionaries move to politics to fight for workers there? Would that be such a bad thing? Is Nazi Gorring right when he/she writes “Unions will always be active”? Even conservative journos sometimes acknowledge that unions have their place (think it was Christopher Pearson the other week).
As for me, every time I see the word “union”, I think “for the worker” and I think there’s a lot of good will for unions out there.
Nasking, love your comments, acid or no acid. “Must be exhausting” being Kevin Rudd. Yeah, but imagine being John Howard, who now has to “try even harder”, the poor dear.
I also agree that the Libs would be scared about the greening of the vote. It reminds me of how the conservative press were running a campaign against Lee Rhiannon with headlines like “Green Lee’s never met an ice user!”. I mean, has Howard? And why on earth should it matter anyway?
Unfortunately, Aussie Sheila, in response to your rhetorical questions: yes, yes and yes. Because as a wearly political blogger, I watched as Latham’s handshake kill Labor’s star in ‘04.
By the way, wilful: I’m not buying into the Howard mythmaking, just acknowledging that that myth exists.
I think my conclusion remains: IR has killed the Howard star.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
oh and thanks Sean. *blush*
April 11th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I’m sure the pleasure was all mine.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
This question reminds me that the victorious allies after WW2 insisted that the new constitutions of both (West) Germany and Japan should allow and encourage a strong, independent trade union movement. This was regarded as an important element in creating a pluralist society and a deterrent to any future resurgence of authoritarian rule.
Yeah well I don’t have to spell out the implications for contemporary Australia do I. ‘Pluralism’ is well on the way to becoming as unpopular a perspective on our society as Marxism used to be. We’re gunna be a Hobbesian Leviathan, YAY! for all the things that unite us under the Glorious Leadership of the suits in the Canberra bunker.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
OH! and the suits in the Business Council of Australia of course … can’t forget them.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“Can we support unions without being a member, and if so, how?” G
By a vote at the next election, G.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Everything you need to know about unions, in just two words: EVIL & SNEAKY!
But apparently some silly people didn’t read the memo…
“Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers, and… a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.”
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice.”
~Dwight D. Eisenhower
“The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few (born) to ride them…”
~Thomas Jefferson
“If any man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar. If any man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool.”
~Abraham Lincoln
“If I went to work in a factory, the first thing I’d do would be to join a union.”
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
“It is one of the characteristics of a free and democratic nation that is have free and independent labor unions.”
~Franklin D. Roosevelt
“I plan to discuss with him (Gorbachev) the importance of free trade unions in building a free country.
~George H Bush
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right-to-work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works.’ Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining… We demand this fraud be stopped.”
~Martin Luther King, Jr
“Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours, and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own job, and even beyond our borders. For the labor movement is people. Our unions have brought millions of men and women together . . . and given them common tools for common goals. Their goals are goals for all America–and their enemies are enemies of progress. The two cannot be separated.”
~John F. Kennedy
April 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Fuckin Ay.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Money speaks for money
The devil for his own
Who comes to speak for
The skin and the bone?