Sit-in strike intensifies as police surround Ssangyong Motor

Korea:

Over 3,000 armed riot police using water cannons, ladder trucks and helicopters, have stormed Ssangyong Motor Pyeongtaek plant where some 800 laid off workers have been holding a sit-in strike for over 60 days after the company announced mass dismissals without notice or union input.

The sit-in strikers, members of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (KMWU), are currently located in the paint shop building of the plant.

A recent report from the KMWU shows the urgency of the situation. “This morning, riot police surrounding the paint shop narrowed the perimeter from 100 meters to 70 meters. Riot police have been dropping teargas on the sit-in protestors by helicopter since this morning and all day, toward evening, they began the operation to take out the sit-in protestors. The situation is getting extremely urgent and we are not sure how long the sit-in strikers can hold out. It is already 8:30 pm here, and the operation is continuing despite the fact the sun has set and amid a protest gathering outside the plant.”

Workers have been cut off from water, food and medical supplies for more than a week. On July 16, riot police used excessive force and rampant arrest to block KMWU unionists and family members from delivering basic supplies to the strikers. A total of 82 were arrested and held for two days.

Strikers’ families have reported that company managers are visiting workers’ homes and threatening family members with the imprisonment of their spouses and confiscation of their homes and assets to pay the company back damages for the strike.

Under Korea’s current criminal law Penal Code 314, employers can pursue imprisonment or initiate enormous lawsuits against individuals and unions for “Obstruction of Business”. According to the KMWU, Ssangyong Motors is targeting 192 unionists to sue for obstruction of business, two KMWU officials have been arrested and another 15 arrest warrants have been issued for KMWU officers related to this strike action.

Ssangyong Motor has repeatedly violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), including unilaterally stopping all payment of the welfare provisions in the CBA and failing to pay wages for production workers dating back to March.

The International Metalworkers Federation (IMF) is urgently requesting its affiliates to take action in support of the striking Ssangyong Motor by sending letters to local Korean embassies or consulates urging the Korean government to end its use of violence and repression to solve industrial disputes and immediately call off the riot police currently surrounding the Ssangyang Motors plant, withdraw all lawsuits and charges against KMWU members supporting the strike, and urge negotiations between government, the company and the KMWU for a fair and just resolution.

Show your solidarity

Join the IMF in urging the Korean government to immediately withdraw police forces from the Ssangyong Motor Pyeongtaek plant, to withdraw all pending arrest warrants and release all imprisoned union leaders related to this strike.

Send your message to the KCTU inter@kctu.org who will forward it to the government.

Send messages of solidarity to the KCTU.

For further information on developments visit: www.imfmetal.org and click on “Solidarity”.

ALP National Conference

A question of values

A question for delegates to the ALP’s national conference in Sydney this week:

Consider an industrial relations system which does the following:

targets workers and unions in one industry for special treatment
renders unlawful virtually all industrial action
imposes heavy fines and permits multi-million dollar uncapped damage claims by employers on individual workers, trade unions and their officials for “unlawful” actions
restricts the right of entry and inhibits unions from carrying out their day-to-day work
subjects innocent workers to a coercive interrogation process – compulsory attendance at interrogation sessions
denies workers the basic right to remain silent during interrogation
can see a worker imprisoned for failing to attend an interrogation session.
Is that what you stand for?

It was certainly not what was contained in the ALP Platform adopted at the 2007 national conference. It was not what the Australian public voted for in 2007 when they rejected WorkChoices and threw out the Howard government.

Yet these provisions are retained in the Rudd Labor government’s amendments to the Howard government’s Building Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (BCII Act). The BCII Act, which established the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), was the most rapacious, anti-worker, anti-union piece of legislation in the Howard government’s WorkChoices package.

Labor’s 2009 amendments retain the threat of imprisonment for exercising the right to silence and refusing to inform on fellow workers. It does, however, allow for the alternative of a financial penalty instead of jail. The amendments do give workers undergoing interrogation the right to a legal representative of their own choice, previously denied by the Howard government. They also open the summonsing process for interrogation and the interrogations themselves to limited external scrutiny. But this is not enough. The undemocratic provisions listed above remain.

The Australian Labor Party in 2007 did not support the concept of laws that discriminate against workers employed in a particular industry. Nor did it back in 2005, when the BCII Bill was before Parliament. Labor MP Penny Wong (now government minister) stated quite categorically in that debate:

“… we do not support the denial of civil liberties to innocent Australians simply because the work in the building industry and simply because this government wants to target these workers.”

The amendments to the BCCI Act still target workers in the building industry.

“The bill places further restrictions upon employees and their unions from exercising their right to strike, which brings Australia into further breach of the relevant International Labour Organisation convention,” Ms Wong warned.

Labor’s legislation is just as restrictive regarding the right to strike and just as much in breach of the ILO conventions.

“This bill potentially puts the health and safety of employees in this industry at risk by imposing financial penalties upon employees who cease to work in what they regard as an unsafe environment,” Ms Wong pointed out.

Ms Wong was right. The health and safety of building industry workers has declined as a result of trade unions being severely limited in their ability to take action in a climate where corrupt, profit-driven employers now feel free to act with impunity.

Target is unions

Liberal Party Workplace Relations Minister Kevan Andrews, during his second reading speech to Parliament in support of the BCII Bill in 2005, made the aim of the legislation clear:

“This bill is a specifically targeted legislative measure to address the unlawful conduct of unions.” By “unlawful” he means “industrial action taken by unions”.

The ABCC’s record confirms that its target is, as Andrews pointed out, the trade unions. Nothing in the Rudd/Gillard bill changes this. Not a single employer has been convicted of a criminal offence as a result of ABCC actions, despite the high rate of deaths and serious injury in the industry. Nor has it tackled the building and construction companies that underpay and cheat workers of their entitlements.

That does not mean the ABCC has not been active. Quite the contrary. Its political police force responds quickly to employer calls to remove union officials from worksites, pull down Eureka flags and remove union stickers and posters. It has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars taking unions, their officials and innocent workers to court for the “crime” of protecting working conditions, jobs and lives of workers.

“I suggest to the House that this government has never been about cleaning up the building industry. Its real goal has been, and always will be, to smash the union movement and hand power back to employers who have no regard for the welfare of building workers and their families,” former ACTU president Martin Ferguson (now Labor minister) said in 2005, pointing to the objectives of the bill. His accusations proved correct.

Simon Crean, ACTU President in 2005, in the same debate, said: “The legislation is driven by ideology… The legislation takes away the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike. It effectively ensures that industrial action in the building and construction industry is unlawful…”

The amendments do not change this situation. Industrial action remains unlawful.

The draft ALP Platform before delegates this week commits Labor to: “Abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission from 1 February 2010 and ensure that the new Fair Work Australia provides a balanced and effective compliance regime, which will provide procedural and substantive fairness to all parties in the construction industry.”

The draft Platform fails to spell out what is meant by a “balanced and effective compliance regime, which will provide procedural and substantive fairness to all parties in the construction industry.” It leaves the door wide open to interpretation and still appears to single out the construction industry for special treatment.

If “abolition” is to mean “abolition”, then surely in the present circumstances, it should be stated clearly that it does not mean a transfer of the ABCC to a new body under a new name with a few relatively minor modifications, which is what the Rudd/Gillard bill does.

Important principles at stake

Greg Combet as ACTU secretary in 2006, spoke at a trade union and community rally in Sydney calling for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission:

“We are fighting for the future of our democracy, we are fighting for the future of our kids, we are fighting for a fair and just Australian society. And fight we will.

“We will not be intimidated by the Howard government, or their friends in the business community. And we will fight until we win. We will see these laws repealed….

“We are clear about our values, and what we stand for. Our values define who we are and what we are fighting for.”

Where are these values today?

They can be seen the resolution unanimously adopted by the 2009 ACTU Congress. This resolution calls on the Rudd Labor government “to immediately repeal the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act (the BCII Act) and to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (the ABCC).”

The ACTU resolution states:

No group of workers should be subject to discriminatory laws;
Coercive interrogation powers have no role in industrial relations and must not be inserted into the Fair Work Act;
Workers should have a right to confidential communications with their union and colleagues regarding industrial matters and to representation by the lawyer of their choice; and
Any regulator dealing with industrial matters should be even-handed, transparent and professional in its conduct and ensure procedural and substantive fairness to all parties.
The ACTU Congress condemned “the prosecution of workers for alleged refusal to participate in compulsory ABCC interrogations, particularly the current prosecution of Ark Tribe.”

ACTU Congress also called for the “removal of restrictions on and penalties for taking industrial action”. The right to strike and take other industrial action is a fundamental democratic right required by trade unions to protect workers.

Another question for ALP delegates: Will these principles be upheld by the National Conference?

Super funds used to bail out corporate crisis

Super funds used to bail out corporate crisis


Anna Pha

In the coming weeks superannuation funds will be reporting record losses for the 2008-09 financial year, far greater than those of the previous year. Around $200 billion of workers’ retirement savings have been wiped, and many workers forced to put off retirement, while retirees return to work. The forecast average loss is around 13 percent for “balanced funds”. This statistical average masks the far larger losses of 20, 30, 50 percent or more that many workers have suffered, depending on how their savings were invested. While workers’ savings were haemorrhaging, the financial institutions were using the super funds to help bail themselves and the corporate sector out of the crisis.

The introduction of the compulsory superannuation guarantee around 20 years ago had a number of aims. These include winding back the publicly funded aged pension; shifting responsibility onto the individual for self-provision during retirement; privatising the provision of retirement income; and providing the private sector with a large source of investment capital.

From the finance sector’s perspective the growth of superannuation funds has been very successful in providing investment capital, presently at around $1.1 trillion and with a guaranteed continuous income stream of close to nine percent of all wages paid.

The banks, insurance companies and their various subsidiaries have the use of the super funds that they control to buy shares in themselves and thus prop up and manipulate their own share prices. A conflict of interest if ever there was one! This demonstrates clearly that there is no guarantee that any fund can or does always make investments with the best interests of the workers’ and their savings in mind.

Superannuation funds have literally saved the bacon of many corporations and possibly some of the banks and insurance companies.

In the past year, a number of the largest corporations listed on the Australian stock market have raised a record $70 billion through share issues and other means. They have used this money to wind back debt and purchase bargain-basement priced takeovers that can be found during an economic crisis. Much of this money came from superannuation funds.

Without this injection of super savings and faced with banks refusing to roll over debt, many private companies would have been in dire straights. Their collapse would have resulted in further losses to super funds. This highlights the contradictions facing workers, the fate of their savings so integrally tied to that of the big corporations which exploit them in the workplace and then profit from their superannuation savings.

Transfer of risk

When a person deposits money into a savings account or fixed term deposit the bank guarantees payment of a certain rate of interest and repayment of the sum in full. The bank takes the risk, lending, investing and speculating with that money. The bank carries any losses.

Superannuation transfers all of the risk onto the backs of workers. They are not guaranteed one cent of income and they are not guaranteed that the money they deposit will be there when they come to withdraw it. The financial institutions invest and speculate with the money for their own interests. For the privilege of risking superannuation savings, they have the hide to charge crippling fees.

The financial system is making a killing making huge profits from control of workers’ savings, with workers carrying all the risk.

Industry funds, which are not-for-profit and have trade union as well as employer representation on their boards, consistently outperform the other funds. Industry funds generally do not charge the hefty fees and commissions that the private funds impose. While they do to some extent determine the types of investment, they do not have control over day-to-day investments which is done through custodians.

Super savings are used in such unethical practices as lending shares for a fee to big business figures to manipulate voting at AGMs and get their nominees elected to directorships on company boards. They are subjected to highly speculative practices on stock and futures markets, and in currency trading, etc.

The private funds managers help themselves to outrageous entry fees on deposits, exit fees on withdrawals, a range of commissions, fees for financial planners and other “services”. Some charge entry fees of four or six percent on money paid into a fund, then they help themselves to another one or two percent for financial planning, a bit more for management and so on.

The government has become concerned about hefty fees eating into savings, fearing that super funds will fall short of their objective of replacing the aged pension. Other concerns have been raised about the rising cost of the special tax concessions relating to superannuation savings. These concessions were designed to encourage people to put more money into their funds by such means as salary sacrifice. The rich are rorting them to the hilt, using them to extract tax-free income from their investments in their own personal super funds.

Industry experts estimate that a 60-year-old retiree with $300,000 in a private pension fund drawing an income of $37,000 would run out of payments within 11 years and then be fully dependent on the aged pension. How many workers will have that sort of money in their fund by retirement!

Tax experts estimate that it would be cheaper for the government to make the aged pension universally available than funding the superannuation tax rorts for the rich.

There are other problems with the superannuation system. The ACTU has called for the Fair Work Ombudsman to be given the powers to investigate superannuation underpayments – as many as one third of employees may be affected by employers who do not meet their obligations.

The government has a number of reviews underway, investigating the huge fees and commissions charged by the finance industry, examining the system of tax concessions and looking at how to reduce the number of people receiving the aged pension. None of them have the objective of protecting workers’ savings.

The privatisation of the provision of retirement income is a big boon for the corporate and finance sectors, but for workers it is not working. It does not and cannot provide security in retirement for all workers. The only way to do that is through the centralised public provision of a basic pension by government. The aged pension should be universally available and sustained at a level that retirees can live with dignity and enjoy a good standard of living, which they have every right to having paid taxes throughout their working lives.

This was government policy during the 1970s when the process of phasing out means testing had begun. Many of today’s retirees made their plans in the belief they would be entitled to the pension.

Superannuation should be over and above a universal aged pension. Workers should have the option of making contributions to a national superannuation fund, run by and guaranteed by the state. This would be a defined benefit scheme, providing retirees with a guaranteed fortnightly income for the rest of their life. Similar schemes were the norm before the process of privatisation of retirement incomes began.

A national superannuation fund would be of additional benefit to the community, with its funds invested in socially desirable projects such as the building and provision of public housing, public infrastructure, health, education, aged care and other services. Industry and private superannuation funds should be subject to greater regulatory direction governing their investments, including a requirement to invest a certain percentage in government guaranteed public sector projects.

Un-Fair Pay Commission

Savage attack on low paid

Anna Pha

On July 9, the Fair Pay Commission imposed a real wage reduction on more than 1.3 million of Australia’s lowest paid workers. The wage decision directly hits those who rely on minimum award rates of pay. The key consideration in its decision was corporate profits. The Commission opted for what it called “a profit-led recovery”, trotting out the usual employer mythology that wage rises cause unemployment. The reality is that by imposing a real wage reduction, the Commission, and the employers whose bidding it does, will drive the economy deeper into recession at the cost of thousands upon thousands more jobs.

“The decision means ordinary working Australians and their families are bearing the brunt of an economic downturn they did not cause,” said ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence said.

“Many workers have already lost their jobs, had their hours cut and now more than a million families are facing a pay freeze despite rising living costs,” Mr Lawrence said. “The costs of rent, food, medicines, education and utilities have all risen in the past year and families need a pay rise to keep up.”

The Commission flatly rejected the ACTU’s claim for a modest $21 a week rise (less than 56 cents per hour), and instituted a wage freeze. Trade unions were taken by surprise, and thousands of workers, desperately struggling to make ends meet had their hopes of a few extra dollars to meet rising prices dashed.

Employers on the other hand are jubilant. They got what the asked for: no wage rise.

The Rudd Labor government asked the Commission to make a “considered” minimum wage increase, without specifying any amount. This made it easy for the Commission to do its considering. When the decision was handed down, Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard said she was “disappointed” but that the real wage reduction was “a decision we have to accept”.

She then went on to defend the Commission’s decision with the comments, “… I understand and the government understands that the Fair Pay Commission confronted the most difficult minimum wages setting environment for many decades that any industrial authority has had to confront.”

The real wage reduction is not surprising considering the membership of the Howard government’s appointees on the Commission. It includes such leading lights of the New Right as Professor Ian Harper and Judith Sloane. They always have an excuse to oppose wage rises, regardless of the state of the economy.

Profits first

The Commission in its decision raised the question of a “wage-led or profit-led recovery”, and chose the profit-led option.

“For many businesses, the decline in aggregate demand has led to significantly lower profitability and changes in business practices,” the Commission said and then in a blind leap of faith embarked on a course that will reduce demand even further. The failure to deliver a $21 a week wage rise to the lowest paid workers will have the effect of reducing demand by more than $1 billion.

Just this month there have been increases in the price of petrol, electricity, water, gas and health services in a number of states. That leaves less money to pay for everything else, and without a wage rise, fewer goods and services will be purchased.

How many jobs will that cost? Thousands more than any jobs that might have been lost because of a small wage rise.

Employers are sacking workers because people cannot afford to buy the goods and services they produce. More workers will be sacked or have their wages and hours cut as a result of this minimum wage decision.

But the narrow-sighted, economic rationalist Commission cynically argues that freezing wages will protect the jobs of low paid workers!

More job losses

The Commission ignores the reason why aggregate demand for goods and services has declined – the gap between what workers are paid and the value of what they produce. The ACTU in its submission pointed out that the profit share of income had increased to record levels in 2008. The Commission itself admits this and makes the point that company gross operating profits increased by 19 percent in the first half of 2008.

This was at the expense of the share of income being paid in wages. It is the build up of this gap between the income from production siphoned off in profits and what is left for workers’ wages that results in economic crisis and recession.

That gap can be narrowed and the economy stimulated by increasing wages. The reduction of real wages undermines the government’s stimulatory measures as well as causing hardship to the workers and their families affected.

All workers affected

The decision is not just a blow for low paid workers. It creates an environment of wage restraint. Unions will find it more difficult arguing for higher wages in enterprise bargaining, unable to seek an increase in line with the minimum rate.

The decision also means that the unemployed are even less likely to get an increase in unemployment benefits. Over the past two to three decades of economic rationalist policies, successive governments have deliberately sought to widen the gap between unemployment benefits and the minimum wage. In line with this trend, the Rudd government refused to raise unemployment benefits when it recently increased aged and other pensions.

The aim is to keep unemployment benefits as far as possible below the poverty line, to force the jobless in sheer desperation to accept any work, regardless of how appalling the working conditions and wages are. Time and again capitalist economists claim the minimum wage is too high. By freezing it in dollar terms, inflation overtime reduces its real value.

Government subsidy to employers

The minimum wage for adults remains frozen at $543.78 per week, $14.31 per hour. This is not a living wage. A family paying rent or servicing a mortgage, with all the other costs they face, can only survive by government subsidies.

Employers have been let off the hook, not forced to pay a living wage. This government assistance takes such forms as rental assistance, low income tax offsets, family benefits and most recently stimulus package handouts. As important as these various benefits are to workers and their families, they would not be necessary if employers paid a living wage.

The Commission’s argument that low wage workers have already received the equivalent of a $20 a week rise through indexing of family benefits and government’s stimulus packages confirms that these payments are a form of indirect corporate welfare, a means of holding down wages to boost profits.

The Commission even included the tax cuts as a reason for freezing wages, except most of the cuts went to those on middle to high incomes. Some low wage workers did not get a tax cut, and did not get the recent $900 stimulus payment either. Their incomes, below the tax threshold, were too low to qualify!

It shows just how out of touch the Harpers and Sloanes are and how little they care about ordinary hard working Australians who are doing it tough. (Harper got paid $124,900 for his part-time position to deliver that decision.)

Reject the decision

The Un-Fair Pay Commission set July 2010 as the expiry date of its wage freeze, at which time the new Fair Work Australia will be in operation. If by then, there is not a miraculous turn-around in the economic situation, another wage freeze or even a reduction in the rate per hour could be on the cards. With the number of jobless predicted to rise and a profit reporting season of gloom and doom on the horizon, there is no guarantee of a wage rise in 12 months time.

A great deal will depend on how the trade union movement responds to this decision. History shows that ultimately, what is won from commissions depends on the struggle on the ground. Low wage workers, the working poor of Australia, should not have to wait until July 2010 to see what crumbs they are thrown.

The recent ACTU Congress made a commitment to raise the federal minimum wage by $56.22 to $600 per week within the next two years through political, community and workplace campaigning. This campaign cannot wait until July 2010.

The campaign must begin now, with pressure mounted on the new Minimum Wage Panel of Fair Work Australia to deliver an increase in the minimum wage by October at the latest, backdated to July.

A “wages-led recovery” will not only improve the living standards of the low paid, but it will speed-up the process of recovery. This is not “a decision we have to accept”.

Rig workers say no to second rate agreement

An employer has failed to bypass the union and introduce a substandard non- union agreement to cover rig workers. Rig workers on the DP Drilling Rig Ensco 7500 off Barrow Island in Western Australia rejected a non-union agreement after meeting with Maritime Union of Australia and Australian Workers’ Union (MUA/AWU) alliance organiser Glen Williams on June 22.

During a rig inspection Glen got to meet with rig workers to discuss Ensco’s proposed Non Union Employee Collective Agreement. The company had put the agreement out to a vote without any prior discussion or negotiations with the workers.

One group of workers reported that at the end of their last hitch on the rig they arrived at Perth Airport to be met by a company representative. They were then whisked off in a bus to a nearby hotel where a lawyer was waiting with a copy of the agreement for them to sign.

The contract locked workers into very poor terms and conditions of employment for five years. It gave Ensco the right to review salaries annually and without negotiation decide to forgo any pay rise. The agreement also included four weeks hitches and a clause that allowed Ensco to stand down workers on no pay whenever they felt it necessary.

“But the workers all stood together, united and refused to sign this second rate agreement,” said Glen Williams. “They all joined the AWU/MUA Alliance along with most of their workmates.”

Another worker reported that on the tow over from South Africa they went 14 days over their hitch. They were all given $100 per day on top of their wages in compensation for not being home with their families.

“This is totally unacceptable and well below what overcycle payments are across the industry,” said Glen Williams.

The workforce voted NO and rejected the agreement.

The MUA-AWU Alliance will be taking these matters up with Ensco, seeking fair payment for ALL workers on Ensco 7500. The Alliance has contacted Ensco seeking a meeting to talk through many of the issues on the rig and to engage in negotiations towards getting a collective agreement that reflects the standards enjoyed by every other sector of the offshore oil and gas industry.

The Ensco 7500 workers have united together to fight for a fairer go and improved terms and conditions of employment on their rig.

Resolution of ACTU Congress 2009

Australian Building and Construction Commission

1. Congress calls on the Rudd Labor government to immediately repeal the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act (the BCII Act) and to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (the ABCC).

2. Congress condemns the Rudd Labor government for maintaining the BCII Act and the ABCC. Congress notes that the continued existence of the BCII Act contravenes Labor Party policy, which affirms that Labor does not support laws that discriminate against workers employed in a particular industry.

3. Congress notes that:

• The ABCC has had a serious negative effect on Occupational Health and Safety in a high-risk industry;

• The ABCC persistently breaches the standards of propriety, honesty, fairness and professionalism expected of government agencies and fails to observe the standards required of a government model litigant. The ABCC has pursued politically motivated investigations and prosecutions against unions and workers and has failed to prosecute one employer for underpayment or non-payment of workers entitlements, despite having the power to do so; and

• On five occasions committees of the International Labor Organisation have stated that the law is inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under ILO conventions concerning Collective Bargaining and Freedom of Association.

4. Congress rejects proposals to create a separate inspectorate within Fair Work Australia, and to retain coercive interview powers as inconsistent with fairness, Labor policy and ILO conventions.

5. Congress maintains that:

• No group of workers should be subject to discriminatory laws;

• Coercive interrogation powers have no role in industrial relations and must not be inserted into the Fair Work Act;

• Workers should have a right to confidential communications with their union and colleagues regarding industrial matters and to representation by the lawyer of their choice; and

• Any regulator dealing with industrial matters should be even-handed, transparent and professional in its conduct and ensure procedural and substantive fairness to all parties.

6. Congress calls for the immediate removal of those provisions of the Building Industry Code and Guidelines that are aimed at weakening workers’ rights and union organisation.

7. Congress calls on unions affiliated to the ALP to support the principles of this resolution in all forums of the party, including the 2009 ALP National Conference.

8. Congress condemns the prosecution of workers for alleged refusal to participate in compulsory ABCC interrogations, particularly the current prosecution of Ark Tribe. Congress affirms its support for any worker who is prosecuted for non-compliance with coercive interviews. Congress authorises the ACTU Executive to co-ordinate a campaign of protest and industrial action against this prosecution and, if necessary, support for any worker who is prosecuted or jailed for non-compliance.

The above resolution was unanimously adopted by the ACTU at its triennial Congress in Brisbane in June 2009. The ACTU and the building industry trade unions in particular, have the full support of the Communist Party of Australia in seeing this resolution implemented.

Thiess pushes dodgy agreement, sacks workers

Construction company Thiess has sacked four workers who rejected a deal which would have forced them to take annual leave if machinery broke down and stripped them of rostered days off in exchange for a one per cent pay rise.

The company told the workers at they were being laid off because of a downturn of work, however, it has since emerged that workers from a nearby site are being trained to take over.

Under new work laws which come into effect on I July 2009, Thiess will be obligated to undertake good faith negotiations with workers and their chosen representatives. Until then Thiess is under no obligation to undertake good faith negotiations.

It is clear from their actions Theiss is trying to push through their substandard agreement before the new work laws take effect.

The CFMEU (Construction Union) strongly condemns Thiess’s attempts to bully workers into accepting a substandard agreement. The CFMEU is calling on Thiess to reinstate the workers who have been sacked and to enter into good faith negotiations with the workers and their representatives.

The union is also calling on the federal government to intervene to stop substandard agreements such as this one from going ahead before the changes to work laws.

What you can do to help:

Call Thiess general manager Doug Moss and politely ask for the Rhodes workers to be reinstated and for the company to enter good faith negotiations:
Phone: 02 9881 9700 Email: feedback@thiess.com.au

Call the federal member John Murphy and ask the government to intervene to stop substandard agreements:
Phone: 02 9745 4433 Email John.Murphy.MP@aph.gov.au

ABCC: Laying bare Labor’s pro-employer position

Anna Pha

“This bill is a specifically targeted legislative measure to address the unlawful conduct of unions”, former Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews told Parliament in his second reading speech on March 9, 2005. He was speaking in support of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill 2005 (BCII Bill), the most draconian and repressive of the Howard government’s anti-union laws. The BCII Act established the notorious secretive building industry police force, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), with its unprecedented coercive interrogatory powers and punitive provisions, including jail sentences for workers.

“I am … disappointed that there are still pockets of the industry where people think they are above the law, where people engage in intimidation and violence,” said the current Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard last week in her second reading speech on changes to the BCII Act. The Rudd Labor government is not repealing the BCII Act but amending it. Labor is not abolishing the ABCC but transferring it to its Fair Work Australia umbrella with a few modifications.

Gillard echoed the Coalition’s anti-union sentiments and targeting of unions, repeating earlier threats “to keep a strong cop on the beat for the benefit of the industry and the economy”. The benefit to industry is higher profits. It is not for the benefit of workers. No mention is made of the need to protect their health and safety or democratic rights.

Gillard’s speech laid bare her pro-employer outlook and the total contempt she holds for militant unions defending the lives, wages, working conditions and other entitlements of workers in one of the one of the most dangerous industries in Australia. The original BCII Act did nothing to address the 50 or more deaths and thousands of serious injuries on building sites every year. Nor does Gillard’s Transition to Fair Work Bill.

Coercive interrogatory powers

The ABCC was given unprecedented coercive powers to interrogate innocent workers and union officials. Failure to turn up for an interrogation session or refusal to inform on fellow workers and repeat what they said at a union meeting carries an obligatory six-month jail sentence. The interrogation might be a hundred or more kilometres from where the worker lives, but the worker must pay all costs, including for loss of work, to attend.

Under the BCII Act building workers and union officials face individual fines of $28,600 a day, unions $110,000 a day as well as millions of dollars of uncapped damages claims from employers for “unlawful” conduct. Even in the case of action to protect health and safety they face the threat of these penalties.

Basic, internationally recognised legal norms were overturned such as the right to remain silent and right to a lawyer of your own choosing. The onus of proof was turned on its head, the compulsory interrogations were secret and the warrants not issued by a court but by the ABCC itself. The Act denied innocent building workers and union officials who might know something the basic democratic rights that are afforded those accused of serious crimes or acts of terror.

Attack on building unions

“It is a bill with one objective: to erode the hard-won rights of building construction workers and, in some instances, to hand back exclusive unfettered power to a small number of ruthless employers who have no regard to the health and safety, and wages and conditions of their employees,” Labor MP and former ACTU president Martin Ferguson said during the debate on the bill in 2005.

“I suggest to the House that this government has never been about cleaning up the building industry. Its real goal has been, and always will be, to smash the union movement and hand power back to employers who have no regard for the welfare of building workers and their families,” he said pointing to the objectives of the bill.

At the time, Labor MPs opposed the concept of a separate industrial relations jurisdiction for a specific industry. Labor Senator Penny Wong, now a minister, said, “It is far better to have a sensible regulatory system across a number of industries.”

Transfer not abolition

The Rudd Labor government’s Transition to Fair Work Bill, if passed, will transfer the ABCC and most of the draconian provisions of the old Act to its new Fair Work Australia umbrella.

From February 1, 2010, the ABBC will become the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate and the ABCC Commissioner will be renamed as its Director. Compulsory interrogations are now called “examinations”! The process of compulsory interrogations has been modified to provide some “safeguards”:

The Director will have to apply to a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for an examination notice to be issued before interrogation can proceed.
Interrogations will be recorded and a copy of them and other investigatory materials will be sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman who will review the activities of the Director following an investigation.
Building workers will now have the right to a lawyer of their own choice at interrogations and will not be bound to secrecy following the interrogation.
Building workers may apply to have their costs in attending an examination refunded.
Building workers will be subjected to the same (lower) fines as other workers for breaches of the Fair Work Act.
The court will have the option of fining as well as or instead of jailing a worker who fails to attend an interrogation or answer questions.
Senator Wong had proposed this as an amendment to the original Bill in 2005, saying “imprisonment has the potential to make a martyr of the person who deifies a warrant. It may be that in some cases a high financial penalty is more of a burden on an individual than simply a short term of imprisonment.” The Howard government knocked it back. The Rudd government is running with it now.

Worst features remain

These so-called safeguards leave intact the key provisions and intent of the Howard legislation:

The right to strike or take any other form of action remains unlawful and subject to fines and multi-million dollar damages actions. The right of entry remains severely restricted, inhibiting unions from carrying out their functions.
The amendments still target one group of workers and their unions for harsher treatment and denial of rights. The ABCC’s record confirms that it is not interested in nor intended to address the unlawful behaviour of employers.
The coercive interrogation process remains intact. Minister Gillard said last week, “It is understandable that workers in the building industry resent being subject to an interrogation process that does not apply to other workers, designed to extract from them information for use in penalty proceedings against their workmates and/or union.… I am satisfied there is still such a level of industrial unlawfulness in the building and construction industry, especially in Victoria and Western Australia, that it would be inadvisable not to empower the [Director of the Building Inspectorate] to undertake compulsory interrogation. The reality is that, without such a power, some types of contravention would be almost impossible to prove.”
The Minister stands condemned by her own words: “information for use in penalty proceedings against their workmates and/or union” and “without such a power, some types of contravention would be almost impossible to prove”. It needs to be repeated, the alleged “unlawful” conduct is legitimate trade union activity. The target remains the unions.

The amendments are even more divisive than the old Act, making provision for the “coercive interrogation powers” – to use the minister’s own words – to be “switched off” in relation to a specific project. They would be turned back on in the event of “industrial unlawfulness” – meaning industrial action by workers and their trade unions.
“These arrangements provide the industry with the opportunity to demonstrate that the requisite lawful culture is in place and the opportunity for the law-abiding majority to not be tarred with the same brush as the unlawful rogue elements,” Gillard said, echoing the very language used by the Liberal-National Coalition.

The process of gaining an examination notice is flawed. The Director does not have to justify the nature of the investigation, only that someone might be able to assist with information being sought. The Building Inspectorate will be able to continue its snooping and intimidatory activities.
Act now

Within Labor ranks there is strong opposition to the Rudd/Gillard legislation. A few MPs have had the courage to speak out against the bill. They must now be given the support and have the courage to vote it down. It is important that as many unions and their members and other organisations and individuals write to their MPs and Senators, calling on them to oppose the legislation.

Ask them which side they are on. Are they prepared to stand up and be counted? If they are, they will have the full support of the trade union movement and community at large.

Time is running out. The Labor government is attempting to rush through the legislation before the ALP national conference at the end of July.

Write also to the Australian Greens Senators, indicating your support for their principled stand against the legislation. This bill must be defeated.

Industrial Relations for the Future

Warren Smith CPA CC Chair and Secretary of MUA Sydney Branch speaks at the launch of the party’s industrial relations booklet called “Industrial Relations for the future” on Friday June 12 at the CFMEU Hall Lidcombe. The other speakers from the Trade Union movement were Peter McClelland, State President CFMEU, Colin Drane AMWU organiser and convenor of the Power to the People – an anti-privatisation community/union group. Also in the picture is Tony Oldfield CPA Sydney District Secretary who organised and coordinated the whole event. The launch was a big success with a good attendance of people from many sectors.

Message on the ABCC is clear

Abolish the anti-union body NOW!

Anna Pha

The message is loud and clear. The witch hunt and jailing of innocent workers for failing to attend compulsory interrogation sessions when summonsed by the special building and construction industry police force, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) is not on. Nor is the singling out of one group of workers and the denial of their basic legal and other democratic rights acceptable. The demand of the trade union movement to Deputy Prime Minister and Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard is “It’s not on Julia! Abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission NOW”.

The trade union movement is organising a large march and protest demanding the abolition of the ABCC outside the ALP national conference in Sydney on July 31.

The government has responded by trotting out former trade union leaders – now MPs – to defend the retention of the ABCC in its new guise as a special division of the so-called Fair Work Australia legislation. It now plans to rush its laws through Parliament before the national ALP conference, where it faces being rolled by angry party members and trade union delegates. Its actions are contrary to ALP policy adopted at the 2007 national conference. Prime minister Kevin Rudd has made it clear that he has no intention of abiding by conference decisions.

Unanimous opposition

Delegates to the ACTU Congress in Brisbane on June 2-4 were unanimous in their call for the abolition of the ABCC. Their pleas fell on pro-employer ears. Gillard and Rudd remain as determined as ever to hold onto the Howard government’s most repressive anti-union measure which criminalises and imposes heavy penalties on basic trade union activity.

When Gillard took the platform at the ACTU Congress, almost every one of the 500 delegates wore the yellow campaign T-shirt calling for the abolition of the ABCC. They listened politely as she told them they should be “pounding the pavements” in support of the Fair Work Act and forget about getting anything more out of the Labor government. But when she tried to defend the retention of the ABCC’s powers and functions with references to violent, lawless thugs wearing balaclavas, patience ran out, and the booing began.

Her reception was in sharp contrast to that of construction worker Ark Tribe. He received three standing ovations. Ark is a rigger who was working on a site at Flinders University in South Australia in May 2008 when a dispute arose over serious safety breaches by the construction company.

The ABCC visited the site only after the dispute had been resolved. There was no sign of the ABCC when the company locked its workforce out. It was the union that called in the government watchdog SafeWork SA which issued prohibition notices and forced the company to rectify its serious breaches.

Instead of pursuing the employer who put workers’ lives at risk, the ABCC went after its workforce questioning them one by one about who said what about safety issues. Ark, a rank and file member of the Construction Division of the CFMEU, now stands accused by the ABCC of failing to attend a compulsory interrogation by that body. Employers who kill workers may receive a fine. If found guilty, Ark faces a six-month jail sentence.

The ABCC has a track record of chasing workers and turning a blind eye to illegal behaviour by employers.

Ark is the second construction worker to face the courts over allegedly failing to answer questions and to not report in detail on union meetings or what fellow workers may have said in private discussions. The first worker to face such charges was Noel Washington in Victoria. His charges were dropped following a highly successful campaign by the trade union movement.

Ark appeared before the Magistrates Court in Elizabeth on June 9. He made a grand entry into the court, walking down an isle of unionists and other supporters wearing the yellow campaign t-shirt. The court adjourned the matter until August 11, safely after the ALP national conference.

The ACTU Congress unanimously pledged its support and called for the abolition of the ABCC and the unjust laws that underpin it. Fair Work Australia – with the retention of Howard’s most draconian anti-union institution – is looking more like “Unfair Work Australia”.

Rotten apples

Since the ACTU Congress, right-wing secretary of the shop employees union, Joe de Bruyn has broken ranks and supported the government’s position, claiming the government has no mandate to abolish the ABCC. Where was his protest over the government’s 20-30 percent hike in military spending in the budget? There was no mandate for that either.

Former ACTU presidents Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean, former ACTU secretary Greg Combet, and the extreme right-wing former secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union, Bill Shorten, Richard Marles and Mark Butler – all former union leaders – have shored up their front bench careers under the Rudd/Gillard team by giving the nod to the ABCC’s paint over.

Greg Combet stunned many of his union colleagues, telling them to be “pragmatic”, bed down and not fight for new laws.

The newly promoted right-wing Employment Participation Minister Mark Arbib tried to justify the laws saying, “There is a small group of rotten apples and we need to ensure there is a cop on the beat to stop any outbreaks.”

Outbreaks of what? The only “outbreaks” that the ABCC is interested in is punishing unionists with $22,000 a day fines for taking action to protect workers’ rights – their health and safety, entitlements and working conditions. The ABCC spends millions of dollars taking action to keep elected union officials off work sites, away from their members, and court actions aimed at bankrupting building and construction unions.

There are rotten apples – the corrupt and unscrupulous construction companies that exploit and endanger the lives of workers. The ABCC is not chasing them. That is not its purpose. Its focus is on ordinary innocent workers and trade unions attempting to do their work and counter the short-cuts and rip-offs that companies take to boost profits.

To his credit, former union secretary Senator Doug Cameron has had the guts to speak out strongly against the treatment of building workers as terrorists or criminals, but it seems he will fall in line and vote for the bill.

Gillard continues to repeat her derogatory claims that it is necessary to keep “a tough cop on the beat”, implying that building and construction workers are some species apart that do not deserve the same democratic rights as the rest of the population.

Funding for the ABCC was increased by $3.2 million to $32.8 million in 2008-09 and the May budget provided further increases with it rising to $35 million in 2011-2012! This is one item that should be deleted now.

The construction companies should be pleased that their millions in donations to Labor’s coffers were well invested, a sentiment not shared within trade union ranks.

Unionists are also wondering what happens when their officials, including some leading lights of the Left, enter parliament. They become tied and bound to the right-wing who have a tight grip on the parliamentary party. They may not always agree with decisions but soon learn not to breach “caucus loyalty”. Some succumb quickly to ministerial ambitions or doing what is necessary to hold onto their seat. A few naively think that they can make things better from within while a number never had a genuine commitment to the working class.

The question of trade unions standing their own, independent candidates has been raised. Some union leaders are querying their affiliation to the ALP, wondering whether they could do more for their members as a politically independent force.

The Communist Party of Australia strongly supports the independence of trade unions and the standing of left and progressive candidates by unions and community organisations. There are also other electoral options. The Australian Greens have sound industrial relations policies and have stood by their principles in Parliament, opposing WorkChoices and the ABCC. The Communist Alliance has been registered by the Australian Electoral Commission and will be standing candidates in the next federal election with a platform supporting working class interests, including trade union and workers’ rights.

For further information on the trade union campaign to abolish the ABCC visit: www.rightsonsite.org.au. Follow the links and send a message to Ark.

MUA calls for urgent change to handle future freight task

Australia would face an impossible task to meet a national freight target tipped to double by 2020 and triple by 2050, without making a new national shipping policy an urgent priority.

“The prediction is that post 2020 coastal shipping will experience significant coastal shipping growth with the need for greater use of efficient and low-carbon methods of transport but the establishment of a competitive Australian shipping industry must begin right now,” said Paddy Crumlin, national secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).

Speaking at the Natship09 conference in Sydney last week, Mr Crumlin launched a new platform for the revitalisation of shipping, Time for a Sea Change in Australian Shipping, calling for the federal government to adopt a comprehensive package of regulatory reforms and fiscal support without delay.

The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese recognised the need for revitalising shipping by commissioning an inquiry into coastal shipping. Mr Crumlin was part of a Shipping Policy Advisory Group appointed by the Minister to turn the inquiry’s recommendations into a new national shipping policy.

“Time for a Sea Change is probably the most important initiative adopted by the MUA. Shipping is a vital part of an integrated national freight solution and can be a great contributor to the economy,” Mr Crumlin said.

Key recommendations that the MUA is looking for the Government to act on include:

The promotion of Australian flagged and crewed ships in the domestic transport sector;
Effective tax incentives for the industry to invest in new ships;
Training for new seafarers to fill the skills shortage including a national maritime skills strategy;
Tighter regulations for coastal shipping to promote transparency and fairness of competition and guard against labour exploitation and tax avoidance by international operators;
A tonnage tax common in major shipping nations where shipping makes an essential economic contribution;
PAYE Tax reform for Australian crew on international voyages;
A Shipping Industry Taskforce to see policy is converted into action.
“Seafarers have and will continue to deliver flexible labour relations arrangements and crewing to ensure commercial success and productivity,” Mr Crumlin said.

ALP no future for workers

ALP no future for workers

Anna Pha

Delegates at the triennial Congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) in Brisbane from June 2-4 were in for a rude shock when Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard addressed them. Gillard treated delegates and the unions they represent with utter contempt, telling them there would be no more reforms to the industrial relations system and that they were not welcome in the corridors of Parliament. Adding insult to injury, she attempted to justify the continuation of the work of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) under another name, implying workers in that industry are violent, balaclava-wearing thugs.

On July 1, “we will be able to proudly say to each other we have cleansed the stain of WorkChoices from the history or modern Australia”, she told delegates. July 1 is the date that Labor’s Fair Work Act comes into operation. The Act removes WorkChoices from the books, but not all of the Howard government’s other repressive laws. The Act and earlier legislation to phase out Australian Workplace Agreements (individual employment contracts) fall far short of providing basic trade union rights and restoring a centralised system for negotiating and protecting wages and working conditions.

Trade unions are particularly angry that the ABCC, the repressive, secretive building industry police force, will be transferred to the new Fair Work Australia umbrella with a few largely cosmetic changes.

The ABCC has been as busy as ever under Labor, pursuing trade unions and officials in the courts and workers on the job, as evidenced by the most recent allegations against a construction worker in South Australia. Ark Tribe was due to go before the Magistrate’s Court in Adelaide as The Guardian went to press for allegedly failing to attend interrogation by the ABCC. If found guilty Arc faces a six-month jail sentence (see story below).

In his speech on the first day of Congress ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence told delegates: “In recent years we have achieved a lot but there is so much more to do. Unionists and activists should be proud.”



“We have fought a hard fight….

“Unions must continue to campaign to improve the rights of workers and their families.”

Lawrence outlined the achievements so far under Labor and went on to say: “I believe that further improvements to IR legislation and workers’ rights are necessary, and that it is our job to make sure they are on the federal government’s agenda for the remainder of this term, and into their next.

“Improvements to workers’ rights should ALWAYS be on a Labor government’s agenda,” Lawrence said, and went on to list a number of actions required from government. Amongst these important demands, was “equal rights for construction workers”. This, Lawrence said, “is our number one industrial issue.”

“We cannot allow laws to continue that can jail a unionist for refusing to discuss a union meeting. Or fine workers $22,000 for taking industrial action,” Lawrence warned.

Gillard in her address to Congress responded to such concerns: “I read that some are asking what next in relation to further legislative reform.

“My reply is to ask, what now? … What will this Congress [do] to ensure Australia working people enjoy the full benefits of the new Fair Work system?

“Pacing the corridors of Parliament House in Canberra is no substitute for pounding the pavements bringing the Fair Work Act to life for working people. The future of Australian trade unionism will not be determined by further lobbying in Canberra, it will be determined by bringing Fair Work to working people in their workplaces,” said Gillard.

In other words, “Nick off, make what you can out of what we have given you, that’s all you are getting from us”.

Gillard’s contempt did not stop there. She raised the question of the ABCC, and shamelessly attempted to justify the transfer of its functions to a new body under Fair Work Australia. The Act setting up the ABCC was arguably the most repressive of all the anti-worker, anti-union pieces of the Howard government legislation.

“Like me, I am sure you were appalled to read of dangerous car chases across Melbourne City involving carloads of balaclava wearing people, criminal damage to vehicles resulting in arrests, threats of physical violence and intimidation of individuals, including damage to a private residence,” Gillard said.

“Balaclavas, violence and intimidation must be unreservedly condemned as wrong by every unionist, every ALP member, every decent Australian.

“And the Rudd Labor government will do everything necessary to ensure that we do not see this appalling conduct again.”

What has that got to do with the thousands of hardworking, law abiding building and construction workers around Australia? They are no different to workers in any other industry. Yet, they have been singled out and subjected to a form of collective punishment for the alleged behaviour of a handful of workers. They are not balaclava-wearing, violent thugs who can be dealt with by the police and courts.

Their only “crime”, in the eyes of the government and employers, is that they are unionised, militant and not afraid to stand up for their rights and protect the health and safety of workers in an industry with an appalling rate of workplace-related deaths and injuries and employers who run off with their entitlements.

The real criminals are the employers who cheat workers of wages and other entitlements and take the short cuts that cost lives. This is not the focus of the ABCC, nor was it ever intended to be. It is not the focus of the Rudd/Gillard government with its plans to keep the industry police force and its powers of interrogation of innocent workers.

Another source of union anger is the government’s failure to consult with the movement. It had no place on the Henry Taxation Review panel which recommended the raising of the pension eligibility age to 67. The employers are represented by Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group. Heather Ridout, in particular, seems to have a chair at almost every policy discussion table with the government, but workers are denied a voice.

The Rudd government is not pursuing the tripartite ,“togetherness” model of the Hawke/Keating days where the ACTU had a voice at the government table alongside the employers. The extent to which this really gave the ACTU more power and influenced policy direction is questionable. In practice, the ACTU became bound to government policy and the conveyor and enforcer of government decisions. This was particularly the case in regard to restraining wages, accepting Labor’s program of privatisations, economic deregulation, and decentralisation of wages and working conditions, etc.

PM Kevin Rudd addressed the Congress dinner at the Brisbane Convention Centre. He concluded his long speech by saying, “we value our partnership with the Australian trade union movement” in developing and implementing its reforms.

“As Australians, we’re all in this together.

“In this together – as business and unions; as communities right across our vast land,” Rudd said.

Not all delegates were convinced about partnership or togetherness with Rudd or Gillard.

Gillard’s blunt rebuttal of demands for further reforms made it clear to the movement that its future does not lie with being tied to Labor.

In his address to Congress Jeff Lawrence, which preceded Gillard’s contribution, raised the question of the union movement’s relationship to the Labor government.

“On our relationship with the Labor government, I assert that we must be strong and we must be independent…

“We must continue to vigorously engage with the government and to be activist in our outlook and to campaign and lead the debate for what is right.

“We have differences of view with Labor on a number of issues, including OHS and the ABCC and we must continue to strongly prosecute our case on behalf of our members…

“If we are to succeed however in ensuring our voice is heard by government we must be unified and disciplined in our approach”, Lawrence said. “We must never retreat from the need for growth and activism.”

The ACTU secretary spoke about the importance of building the trade union movement and building consensus around a new union agenda. “We cannot forget our strength comes from the workplace and our delegates.”

When militant action was replaced by sitting around the table during the Hawke days, the trade union movement was seriously weakened. Employers upped their attack on the working class and trade unions. Trade union membership declined, working conditions went backwards and real wages fell. The Howard government followed with its anti-union offensive.

The power of the trade union movement lies in its work on the ground, its level of organisation, its unity and preparedness to take action, and on retaining an independent position that puts the interests of its members first.

Public Launch - Industrial Relations for the Future

A Communist Party IR Policy

Speakers:

Peter McClelland - State President CFMEU
Colin Drane - AMWU Official and Convenor Power to the People
Warren Smith - CPA CC Chairperson and MUA Sydney Branch Secretary
Friday 12th June, 6:00PM
CFMEU building 12 Railway Parade, Lidcombe

Supper and drinks available

For information please contact
Tony Oldfield on 0449 211 970 or
CPA office on 02 9699 8844

Big tasks – Difficult times

ACTU Congress

Big tasks – Difficult times

Anna Pha

More than 500 trade union representatives from around Australia are meeting in Brisbane this week for the 2009 triennial National Congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). It is the first Congress since the defeat of the ultra-conservative Howard Coalition government in 2007, a defeat in which the trade union movement, in alliance with the wider community, played such a critical role. The Congress is being held at a time of serious economic crisis and rising unemployment, made more difficult by the punitive and draconian restrictions imposed by the former Howard government’s WorkChoices legislation, which remains largely in place.
The face of trade unionism and conditions under which unions operate has been transformed over the past 20 years. During the Howard years, in particular, trade unions suffered a hammering with waves of anti-union laws imposing the most punitive and restrictive of regimes denying trade unions, their officials and individual workers basic rights: policies that are in breach in of International Labour Organisation conventions signed by Australia.
There has been a dramatic decline in the level of trade unionism to its lowest level for over 60 year. The process of determining wages and working conditions has been decentralised. The focus has shifted from comprehensive centralised union awards to enterprise agreements and individual contracts. Non-union agreements and individual contracts (Australian Workplace Agreements – AWAs) were strongly promoted by the Howard government. Awards that previously provided comprehensive coverage of wages and conditions were gutted and rendered almost meaningless.

Decentralised bargaining

The right to strike and take other forms of industrial action, the right of trade unions officials to enter a workplace, the right to recruit, and other fundamental trade union rights were removed. The Australian Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act with its building industry police force (ABCC) went even further by denying a section of the workforce other fundamental democratic rights not even denied suspected terrorists or criminals. The ABCC has spied on, hounded, interrogated and taken to the courts individual workers, union officials and building unions. The ABCC remains intact with all of its powers and the punitive provisions that accompany them.
Labor was elected with promises to repeal WorkChoices, modernise the award system, legalise pattern bargaining, transfer the ABCC to its new Fair Work Australia industrial relations umbrella and other measures to create “fairer” workplaces.
The Rudd Labor government passed legislation to phase out AWAs and then more recently its Fair Work Bill, which comes into operation on July 1. The Industrial Relations Commission is in the process of stripping, merging and writing new “modern awards”. In no way will these restore awards to their former role providing a centralised system for determining wages and conditions across industries and occupations.
The Fair Work Bill provides for a new system of “good faith bargaining”, which is essentially a system of voluntary conciliation and arbitration, with the Commission having certain powers to step in. Employers will be obliged to negotiate, but not reach agreement with trade unions. There are no guarantees that it will be trade unions at the negotiating table. The legislation is vaguely worded, and unions will only know what it really means when it has been tested in practice or in the courts. It could well prove to be a job creation initiative for the legal profession.
Pattern bargaining – where enterprise agreements with common demands and outcomes are negotiated across workplaces – remain essentially outlawed. The government has not restored the rights of trade unions to centralised negotiations for industry-wide agreements. This considerably weakens their capacity to defend workers’ interests, particularly in workplaces where the union is industrially weak or has no representation.
Even with the most generous interpretation, Labor’s industrial relations laws fall far short of the expectations of the Your Rights @ Work groups that united trade unions and the community in struggle to defeat the Howard government.

Trade union rights

Minister Julia Gillard has no intention of abolishing the ABCC. In fact, its inclusion under the Fair Work Australia umbrella suggests that its fascistic provisions could be extended to other industries where workers and their trade unions are considered too militant for the employers’ and government’s liking.
The right to strike and take other forms of industrial action remain in practice just as illegal as under Howard. The right to take “protected action” – meaning unions and workers will not be sued for damages or fined by the courts – is limited to a very short period during the negotiation of a new enterprise agreement. Even these provisions are subject to cancellation by the Commission.
Actions in defence of conditions being breached by an employer, following the victimisation, sacking or the death of a worker, in support of other workers’ struggles such as not crossing a picket line, remain illegal. Political, environmental and international solidarity actions are also illegal – punishable by heavy fines and damages cases amounting to millions of dollars. Employers, with their huge resources behind them, have taken to using the courts as an economic weapon to drain union funds.
Individual workers are powerless, their strength lies in their unity, in their ability to collectively bargain and take united action in defence of their interests. Without the ability to take united action the source of their power is drained. That was the aim of WorkChoices; to render trade unions powerless and ineffective, and to eventually destroy the trade union movement as a whole.
The Howard government failed in its objective to destroy the trade union movement but it has had some successes in seriously weakening the movement’s capacity to fight and prevent the introduction of individual contracts, the ongoing casualisation of the workforce and the assault on wages and employer theft of working conditions.
Gillard has indicated that she has no intention of further legislating in these areas. Any further reforms will have to be wrung from the Rudd government through struggle, and by rebuilding the community campaign.
This raises serious questions for Congress as to the direction of the future struggle for trade union rights and the relationship of trade unions to the Australian Labor Party. Howard has gone, Labor is in. Where next? Should trade unions consider standing candidates, forming alliances with or supporting candidates that support the trade union movements such as the Australian Greens and the Communist Alliance?

Jobs and entitlements

There are many other pressing industrial issues facing delegates this week. These include wages and working conditions, forms of work, the protection of workers’ entitlements and job protection.
Trade unions have co-operated with employers facing economic difficulties by making sacrifices and agreeing to wage reductions and shorter hours of work to avoid sackings. Some bosses have unscrupulously exploited the current climate of job insecurity to impose wage cuts and longer hours and unpaid overtime. In the highly casualised sectors employers have been able to sack workers freely, leaving them high and dry with few job prospects and no entitlements.
Once the recovery sets in, the trade union movement faces a big struggle to fight the inevitable demands of government and employers to restrain wages and deny workers a return to their former working conditions. Wage rises, in particular for those on low and middle incomes, are essential for the restoration of living standards and as a stimulus to the economy to assist in the recovery. Wage rises enable people to buy more, they increase demand for goods and services, which in turn generates the recovery. It is no use increasing production if no one has the money to purchase what is produced.
Amongst the many other important items being considered by Congress are tax and social security. The below-subsistence unemployment benefit of $225 for a single person affects all workers, not just those who lose their jobs. It strengthens the hand of employers offering low paid work under appalling conditions, especially during periods of high unemployment, and thus exerts a downward pressure on the wages of those with jobs.
The question of workers’ entitlements is another big issue which is far from being resolved, despite the many trade union campaigns and attempts to protect them. Companies go belly up, the banks head the list of creditors and workers miss out again and again. Directors are still free to siphon off funds to other companies before they go bust, so cheating workers of their entitlements. The law does not stop them then doing the same thing again and again to other groups of workers.

Rebuilding the trade union movement

A number of factors including industry restructuring, anti-union laws and attempts at social peace with employers and the promotion of individualism have contributed to decline in trade union membership levels – now at around 15 percent of the workforce in the private sector – down from a 60 percent high some 40-50 years ago.
The need to rebuild a strong, militant united trade union movement has never been more urgent. The Howard government, with the assistance of the corporate sector whose interests it served, did a great deal with promises of “choice not to be union” and attacks on trade unions as “interfering third parties” to dissuade young people and others from becoming union members.
The Howard government waged an all out ideological war to blur class consciousness, to present class struggle as dead and convince workers that employers had their interests at heart. Of course nothing is further from the truth as anyone working in a factory, hotel, café, call centre, on the docks, a construction site, down a mine, or stacking shelves in a supermarket knows.
One of the crucial tasks ahead is recruit, recruit and organise.
The class struggle is not dead. Nor is trade unionism. The struggle will continue, and during such difficult and insecure economic times as these, it becomes even more important to protect workers’ rights and jobs and rebuild the trade union movement.