This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
There's two sides to the cutting of "tall poppies"... giving one person status over and above their neighbour can be of great benefit if that person uses their power wisely and invests effort into some improvement or infrastructure -- generating a positive outcome. On the other hand, there is absolutely no proof of the free trade thesis deglaring that market efficiency will guarantee the "tall poppy" always maximises benefit to society when they act selfishly. A selfish tall poppy can be outright dangerous, especially when it comes to aspects such as pollution, outsourcing jobs, driving down wages, encouraging authoritarianism to protect their status quo and starting wars so the public purse can pay for the snatching of private resources from weaker countries.
The system of cutting down tall poppies is (in effect) a safe strategy -- low returns, low risks, harm minimisation.
For better or for worse, Australians have moved away from this strategy in recent years. Hard to say exactly where it started but we have seen a number of signs of change:
The unions of Australia are never going to see John Howard as an ally, so it seems logical that they would support the Labor Party. However, Labor is only going halfway to support the unions. There was a time when Labor talked about rolling back the Work Choices legislation (just like they once talked about rolling back GST) but now they just have a plan to tinker a bit around the edges.
The ABC explains this Labor plan to take the remains of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and roll it together with the Australian Fairplay Comission and the Office of the Employment Advocate and the Office of Workplace Services into one giant federal office of everything related to employment.
Some people would argue that such a monster commission would be unwieldy and difficult to deal with. Others would argue that all federal commissions are unwieldy so might as well only deal with one. I'm sure that the result of the merger will still be smaller that the Australian Tax Office and probably smaller than Centerlink so it won't be the worst elephant in the room.
JULIA GILLARD: It will modern and simplify our award system and then make sure it's kept in good repair. We want to have a safety net that works for Australian working families and Fair Work Australia will deliver that safety net. It will also conduct the annual minimum wage case and it will publish up to date pay scales so every employer and every employee can know what's going on. Fair Work Australia will deal with unlawful and unfair dismissal claims; Fair Work Australia will also deal with agreement making and the registering of agreements. Fair Work Australia will be there to settle major industrial disputes that are causing significant harm to the Australian economy. It can also be there to assist parties with solving smaller disputes if they want that assistance and only if they want that assistance.
What she fails to point out is that the existing commissions already cover all of this ground so there won't be anything new in terms of scope. Since any organisation of any size must be internally subdivided (just to make it sane), we will probably end up with the same people doing the same jobs in the same way.
In other words, this is yer basic smoke and mirrors and name shuffling that all the major corporations indulge in once every five to ten years (remember Goldstar, then Lucky Goldstar, then LG -- everyone knows that Goldstar TVs are shit but they still buy LG TV sets; remember Anderson Consulting that managed to get a name that was synonymous with "joke" in the industry but now we have Accenture who are supposed to be better).
CHRIS UHLMANN: The Prime Minister sees Labor's public execution of the commission as part theatre and aimed at returning power to the unions.JOHN HOWARD: This is not about good policy, this is a political device to give the impression of modernity, but in reality, it will hand back even greater power to union bosses in a centralised body.
John Howard is talking shit like he usually does. If a centralised body is a bad idea, then why is he working so hard to drag power away from the states into federal control? Surely leaving workplace policy as a state matter would be more decentraliased and both people and business would move to the state where the policies worked best (i.e. a free-market system at work -- something John Howard pretends to believe in).
Kevin Rudd's policy is about doing as little as possible while putting a new name on John Howard's policies. The best that Kevin is going to offer the unions is a reprieve from complete extinction and if you think about it, that's all Kevin has to offer the unions because what else are the unions going to do other than support Labor?
Really, their options are extremely limited. They could:
The Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, says that although there are some teething problems with the Government's new industrial system, business is rusted onto it.HEATHER RIDOUT: The agencies that their talking about the Fair Pay Commission, the Office of Employment Advocate, the Office of Workplace Services, are all central to the operation of work choices, to combine them into one with the AIRC would in fact create some conflicts of interest between those bodies.
An independent umpire is one thing, where you impartially mediate or resolve disputes, but then to put enforcement functions such as those that reside in the Office of Workplace Services alongside that, so you have people prosecuting employers for breaches of awards or unfair dismissal breaches, it does seem a very strange combination of functions.
This is rather ridiculous when she fails to explain where the conflict of interest falls. In summary, the Australian Fairplay Comission handles minimum wages and casual loadings, while the Office of the Employment Advocate handles the AWAs (including making rules for what AWAs contain, providing an office for the registration of AWAs and checking existing AWAs for defects). These two offices are basically rule makers and they have distinct (though related) functions. In contrast, the Office of Workplace Services doesn't make rules, it enforces the existing rules and investigates workplaces.
An analogy would be to consider merging the RTA with the Traffic Police. Right now, the RTA and the Police pretty much work hand in glove and they are separate only for historical and administrative reasons -- there's no particular conflict of interest between rule creation, administration and enforcement. The main conflict of interest is that both the RTA and the police raise revenue by processing traffic fines. It's not a conflict between the RTA and the Police (they both love the revenue raising system), the conflict is only with regular people trying to get on with their lives... but that's a conflict of interest existing in all government going right back to primitive Kleptocracy and nothing we do is going to change that.
Let's face it, if the AFC, the OEA and the OWS stay separate they are still going to be tightly cooperative, share information and to some extent overlap functions, plus they are all going to be susceptible to political pressure from the Prime Minister to make sure the public image of successful results is maintained... same result if they are merged... Labor's policies are window dressing.
In the situation that we have right now there is no independent umpire really nor is there any mechanism for oversight. We just trust that the various commissions will do the right thing. Ultimately, the only "fallback" available will be the Federal Court system and the OWS has a substantial upper hand in that situation.
The more radical newspaper "Green Left" shows the unions complaining about Labor's policies.
Commenting on Rudds proposal that strikes be limited to protected periods after the expiry of agreements and then only after a secret ballot, Victorian state secretary of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFUA), Michelle ONeil told Green Left Weekly that her union is opposed to any restriction of right to strike
The right to refuse to work is a natural right. You can't push a wet noodle. However, the unions want a bit more than the right to strike... what they really want is the right to refuse to work, and keep their jobs and be able to stop anyone else from working that job. That goes well beyond basic "wet noodle" rights and into the realm of the protected guild monopoly. Such monopolies turned up around Europe (especially England) going back to medieval times and the balance of power shifted around all over the place.
Secret ballots disadvantage many workers, especially those from non-English speaking backgrounds, adding an extra level of bureaucracy to what should be managed by workers in the workplace.
Since secret ballots are a cornerstone of our political structure it seems like a very good idea for Australians to become familiar with the operation of such things. It is rather easy to organise a pen-and-paper voting system that provides moderate security and reasonable secrecy.
Let's not forget that strikes also disadvantage many workers, even those who never got to vote because they were working at something else in another workplace that just happened to depend on the products of this particular workplace.
Other limitations on the right to strike would ban workers from striking in solidarity with other workers and participating in political protest. Victorian Electrical Trades Union state secretary Dean Mighell said that this breaches International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions and fundamental human rights. The workers only right is to withdraw labour ... workers under Rudd should have the right to stop work to attend political demonstrations without fear of the sack.
Of course, workers can always withdraw labor... but why should they expect to automatically keep their jobs if they don't work?
There's always another side to it, and this is something that the media are keeping very quiet about. Employers have demonstrated that they are willing to get ridiculously petty and push their luck by docking pay for tiny amounts of time spent "off the job". They are also willing to use fines and pay docking as a mechanism for imtimidation especially when they take part in any union-organised activities. This goes way beyond maintaining normal business operations and into the realm of outright domination.
This example with railway guards shows how silly it gets:
"Guards are having money deducted just because they need to go to the toilet - and don't get permission," NSW LHMU Security Union assistant secretary, Mark Boyd, says."Our members feel like they are back in school, desperately waving their hands saying 'please, please, sir can I go to the toilet'.
The guards also complained about being able to get water to drink on the job. Hey ALL railway commuters should complain about how bloody hard it is to get water to drink... for that matter even finding a toilet that works (and isn't locked) on a train station is damn difficult. Then they actually allow hawkers to set up camp in the walkway of major train stations trying to make you buy shit or trying to hand you newspapers full of rubish articles and ads.
The issue of being able to visit the loo is bordering on a health and safety concern (and there is yet another fereral office to handle that, the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, maybe that should become part of Fair Work Australia too). Certainly, going without water for extended periods slowly damages your kidneys and kidney disease is on the rise.
The insertion of penalty privisions into AWAs is not permitted to the extent that such provisions make it difficult for the employees taking public holidays or regular leave. Personal or family emergencies are also protected.
Labor has not suggested any system for resolving disputes over basic amenities or over employees being penalised for trivial transgressions, nor have they demonstrated a resolve to put an end to this petty domineering.
It goes a step further, here we see a real-world example of an employer taking advantage of loopholes in the system. If the union had been powerful they never would get away with something like this (and would have never tried it on).
Prime Minister Howard and his IR sidekick Andrews are supporting a Melbourne electrical parts manufacturer, Heinemann Electric, who are refusing to pay employees for a full week of work that they have already completed because the workers have banned extra overtime in an effort to secure their employee entitlements under a new enterprise agreement.Freehills - the Howard Government's favourite legal advisers who helped write the new IR laws - have advised the company that the Federal Government's IR laws actually prohibit the workers being paid for the 38-hours of work they did.
ACTU Secretary Greg Combet has challenged the Howard Government to come clean on the issue. These workers were not on strike Mr Howard they were at work. Are you saying that as far as your IR laws are concerned the 38-hours work these workers have completed was a 'strike' and therefore they should not be paid?
The OWS Website seems at face value to be in favour of the CFEMU:
the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and contains five minimum employment conditions.The Standard applies to all people working in Australia.
The minimum conditions in the Standard are:
- a federal minimum wage rate, minimum award classifications and rates of pay, and casual loadings set by the Australian Fair Pay Commission;
- maximum ordinary hours of work limited to 38 hours per week (which can be averaged over twelve months in an agreement or award) and reasonable additional hours;
- four weeks paid annual leave per year (five weeks for continuous shift employees) up to two weeks of which can be cashed out in a workplace agreement;
- ten days paid personal/carer's leave and two days compassionate leave per year;
- up to 52 weeks unpaid parental leave (maternity, paternity and adoption).
Thus, 38 hours work is the standard and these people correctly worked those hours. Should be end of story right then and there. Also, the statement on public holidays would surely also cover overtime:
Do I have to work on public holidays?A worker does not have to work on a public holiday, however the employer may ask the worker to work. The worker may refuse to work as long as the worker gives the employer reasonable grounds for refusing. An employer may not sack a worker for refusing to work on a public holiday.
Here's more coverage of the Heinemann Electric dispute.
One of the workers made the point to the Delegates rally that she hasn't worked any overtime in the 17 years she had been employed by Heinemann Electric and now she is expected to work it or not be paid for the ordinary time worked.
Obviously this is an example of an employer deliberately escalating a problem and trying their luck with the new system by making outrageous claims. It's the sort of case that the Labor party should be showing that they can handle better than John Howard, because it's a situation that many ordinary Australians can sympathize with and where it's easy to see who the "bad guy" is.
Another coverage of the situation:
This has been allowed to occur because the new interpretation of the law is that a company is not obliged to pay employees during industrial action, always interpreted previously as industrial strike action. This creative interpretation was advised to the company by Freehills, the lawyers who helped draft the WorkChoice laws, who initially claimed the clause was overlooked and the company found it themselves, but finally had to admit they lead the company to it. While the Industrial Relations Commission agreed the company should pay the employees, it seemed to have no power to force this action.
OWS Director Nicholas Wilson says the case highlights the need for employers to contact OWS before taking action that may reduce payments to employees."A significant part of the OWS charter is to assist employers and employees with understanding their obligations under workplace laws, said Mr Wilson.
By contacting OWS before they take action, all parties can be sure they have a clear view of the law, and OWS policy about how it should be applied", said Mr Wilson.
Which kind of contradicts what the FAQ for OWS says:
Can OWS provide legal advice?No. The OWS does not provide legal advice.
Presumably someone provided Heinemann Electric with legal advice, seems it was a company called Freehills (their older name was Freehill, Hollingdale and Page).
Freehills is committed to providing innovative commercial legal advice with the resources and expertise of around 1,000 lawyers, including more than 200 partners, across Australia and South-East Asia.
http://www.unionsolidarity.org/labels/Heinemann.html>Ultimately the Heinemann management capitulated so the advice obviously didn't turn out to be much good in hindsight.
The company claims they can do this because of a provision in Australian workplace law. The company has received legal advice from Freehills -- a key architect of the Howard Government's new industrial relations legislation.
ETU members at Heinemann Electric in Mulgrave , Australia , whose employer refused pay ordinary weekly wages when the workers weren't available for overtime, have been victorious in reaching an in-principle agreement with the company.
Hmmm, the phrase "innovative commercial legal advice" sounds suspiciously similar to "creative accounting" -- looks a bit like they stuffed it up this time round.
There does seem to be a number of linkages between Freehills and John Howard's federal Liberal government so maybe they just figured they were sufficiently covered that there was no way they could lose. The only back you can trust John Howard to watch is his own -- which makes sense when you consider his philosophy is that all individuals should be as selfish as possible and power belongs in the hands of whoever can take it (in other words, he believes that the solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect every time, but he probably would not explain it that way).
There's probably more, I got bored searching...
In what the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union is calling the Federal Governments war on workers gone mad, up to 70 workers are expected to be served, and could face fines of up to $20,000 if the Federal Governments legal action is successful.Melbourne lawyers, Freehills are acting for the Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, and are believed to have briefed a senior Melbourne barrister to run the case.
The case will start in the Brisbane Federal Court today at 9.30am.
The Union estimates that the taxpayer would already have spent up to $50,000 for Freehills to have prepared the subpoenas.
Last year, workers employed by Eagles Engineering turned up for a maintenance project outside Moranbah in Central Queensland, and the accommodation they were expected to live in was infested with feral cats, fleas and had raw sewerage on the ground.
Queensland State Secretary of the AMWU, Mr. Andrew Dettmer said the camp was unsafe and uninhabitable.
It's much more than a one-off. The same trick has been used all over the place. Some more examples of the same modus-operandi are documented here:
Western Australian-based Total Corrosion Control (TCC), one of the contractors engaged by ALCOA in Pinjarra to erect scaffolding has served writs on the 40 metalworkers it employs. The workers face $28,600 in fines plus unspecified damages for a union meeting that allegedly went 15 minutes over time. The workers union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), also faces fines, totalling $220,000 plus unspecified damages.
Note that TCC later withdrew their case and backed off. However, the object of intimidation is not to destroy your opponent, merely to keep them stressed and frightened. The relatively large penalty and difficulty of defending oneself are used here to keep individuals scared of attending any union meetings.
ABOUT 40 workers at failed carpet maker Feltex's West Footscray plant have been docked four hours' pay for returning to work two minutes late from a morning tea-break.The workers, members of the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, had used their 10-minute break to attend a meeting addressed by federal Labor's industrial relations spokesman, Stephen Smith.
And QANTAS doing it to their baggage handlers:
WorkChoices allowed Qantas to fly away with $32,000 of employees money, according to the airline. Qantas claims John Howard's legislation left it with no choice after 99 baggage handlers held an urgent safety discussion when bolts started falling from overhead construction work at Sydney Airport.
The obvious result of the above employer behaviour is that workers might as well take the full four hours off if they are going to take the penalty anyhow. It happened with some other QANTAS baggage handlers.
Around 300 baggage-handlers and airport workers at Qantas domestic and international airports in Perth, Western Australia held a four-hour snap strike on February 11 over management abuse and safety concerns.The workers, members of the Transport Workers Union, alleged that a supervisor verbally abused two baggage handlers who raised concerns with him about unsafe equipment. Workers at both terminals walked out after learning they would be docked four hours pay for attending a stop-work meeting to discuss the issue. The meeting had lasted just over one hour.
Brodene Wardley, a crane driver and safety rep at Roche Mining near Hamilton, was sent a warning she would be jailed if she did not front the Australian Building and Construction Industry Commission and answer questions about a day-and-a-half safety stoppage.Workers at the Western Victorian site took action when a bus taking them to the mine almost ran into a train. However, under threat of legal penalties, Wardley could not speak about details of the hearing or the incident but said the process had been intimidating.
For me it was a very scary thing, I couldn't understand why I was being called up, the mother of three said. Under special laws introduced by the Howard Government, workers in the construction industry can be jailed for six months for not turning up to hearings, not providing all relevant information, or speaking about commission hearings to anyone but their lawyer.
This methodology works alongside the disproportionately harsh fines to provide additional intimidation. The investigations are secret, people involved are ordered not to talk about what they have seen and we have no public scrutiny, no accountability and basically no oversight. How much of this has been going on? Since it is secret, no one can tell.
Instead, Labor are doing a whole bunch of structural shuffling that completely fails to target the problems.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.