Victorian Ambulance Union v United Workers' Union

Wow. 12 years. Long time no write. Anyway...

The Victorian Ambulance has existed for around 5 years. To see the background to its formation in 2019 see this article in Green Left Weekly. Essentially, United Voice fucked over Victorian ambulance members when amalgamating with the National Union of Workers.

So how is VAU doing today relative to the shell of what is left of the "Ambulance Employees Association - Victoria" (i.e. the United Workers' Union front)? We have the recent protected action ballot orders concerning Ambulance Victoria to compare the relative membership numbers.

• Victorian Ambulance Union: 5,175 members
• AEAV (United Workers' Union): 276 members

The evidence is pretty clear. Don't fuck over your ambulance membership!

The Victorian Ambulance Union has applied to be a registered organisation under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Good luck to them!

Rubbery numbers

Long time, no write...

Recently I stumbled across the fact that the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees was de-registered in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC). Nothing odd in that, considering the fact that the Federated Ironworkers (FIA) amalgamated with The Australian Workers Union (AWU) nearly 20 years ago. The decision looks like a bit of house-keeping that the AWU should have done ages ago.


The odd thing is the fact that the FIA was de-registered with the grounds being that it was "defunct" and a "small organisation". For the purposes of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 a "small organisation" is one with less than 20 members. It's odd because the FIA has reported membership of thousands of members as the table below demonstrates:

Date	Membership
31 December 2000	8,936
31 December 2001	8,119
31 December 2002	7,126
31 December 2003	6,710
31 December 2004	8,467
31 December 2005	5,011
30 June 2006	5,087
30 June 2007	9,109
30 June 2008	8,307
30 June 2009	10,939
30 June 2010	7,960
30 June 2011	10,386

So between 30 June 2011 and 18 June 2012 we're supposed to believe that the FIA's membership decreased by over 99%. Something's not right. Could it be that the AWU/FIA were fudging their numbers all these years? They wouldn't be the only union. To suddenly have virtually no members surely demonstrates  that the numbers reported to the QIRC for over a decade were rubbish.

Celebrate the wins

Congratulations should go out to the Victorian Branch of the Australian Nursing Federation. Their Respect Our Work campaign won them a lot of admirers in the labour movement. Hopefully the appalling treatment of nurses by the conservative government has awakened the consciousness of Victorian nurses a little.

The next state election in Victoria will be very interesting if the ANF can convert this activism into an election campaign. Time will tell...

Something I was emailed recently...

Lawyer Geoffrey Robertson has suggested nine questions for the British parliamentary committee to put to Rupert Murdoch tonight. This is my favourite:

“Do you remember Digby Bamford, Mr. Murdoch? Let me remind you—Digby was the 13-year-old schoolboy who committed suicide after you published his 13-year-old girlfriend’s diary in the Sydney Mirror. It was back in 1964, just after you had taken over your first big city paper and you published a 13-year-old’s diary ‘in the public interest,’ so you said, revealing teenage promiscuity in state schools. Except the girl turned out to be a virgin and the boy killed himself from the shame that followed your invasion of her privacy. Let’s face it, Mr. Murdoch, your career took off by publishing a 13-year-old schoolgirl’s diary. Should it not end with the hacking of a 13-year-old murder victim’s mobile phone? Isn’t it time for you to go, not just Hinton and Brooks?

This decision is a warning to brown-nosers everywhere. Beware of Commissioner Ryan!

AMIEU delegate Heath Lebsanft was recently re-instated by Fair Work Australia. A good result for him and his union.

I'll quickly quote from the decision:

[13] On this occasion Mr Lander, a Sticker (also referred to as a Bleeder) on the kill floor offered, and subsequently made, a statement to management of Oakey which supported its claim that an increase in the chain speed was reasonable. He did so in an environment where the AMIEU was strenuously opposing the proposed increase in the chain speed on the kill floor.

[14] It quickly became known to workers on the kill floor that Mr Lander had made a statement in support of the employer’s claim for an increase in the chain speed on the kill floor.

[15] By making a statement in support of the employer’s position and against the position adopted by the union Mr Lander was very clearly “nailing his colours to the mast”. This is an apt description of what Mr Lander did. By his actions in making a statement in support of the employer’s position Mr Lander was making clear that he was firmly on the side of the employer.

Mr Lander is referred to in this decision 223 times. Mr Lander would be known to the people working in that abbatoir and the local community.

This decision highlights the importance of hoping you don't get Commissioner Ryan conduct your hearing if you don't want all of your dirty laundry aired. I don't have any sympathy for Lander. He's a filthy brown-noser who undermined the collective decision made by union members. He's a scab...and there ain't much lower than them.

So what's gotten me on here again?

The Australian, that's right - that "newspaper" The Australian. Specifically this article, entitled 'Penalty rates are holding us back'.

It's hard to know where to begin in describing how terrible this article is and how misleading it is. I'll just use dot points or I will be here half the night.

• The article conflates penalty rates with overtime. Its apparent the store owner doesn't even know the difference between the two -
  
  "If there wasn't that restriction on doing overtime work I could employ more people to come and work on the weekends and, say, on Thursday nights, too," Mr Dracakis says.
  
  There's actually no restriction on overtime. You just have to pay people correctly. And more importantly you could employ casuals on evenings and Saturdays and not pay them any more than you'd have to pay for employing them during the day time as the General Retail Industry Award 2010 only provides them with a penalty for Sundays and night work (clause 29.4(a) and (b)).
  
  
• "Dracakis Jewellers is required to pay its employees time-and-a-half for working more than 38 hours a week and on Saturdays, and double time on Sundays, under their industry award." WRONG. The award only requires payment of time and a-quarter on Saturdays during the hours of 7am-6pm, which was the the case with the previous state award. Also casuals are not entitled to this 25% loading - AGAIN this was the case with the previous state award. Maybe the writer is quoting from the Shiftwork clause 30 for his information, despite the fact that this store clearly does not fit into the definition - unless the jeweller wants to be open on Saturday night or 3am in the morning?
  
  
• On a more fundamental journalistic level Amos Aikman has made zero effort to actually get an alternative viewpoint. His article reads like an opinion piece - I know it's an Australian article so why should we expect more but seriously? This is the best you could do? Not even a quick phone call to the SDA or ACTU to check your facts?

It's frustrating reading poorly researched, one-sided bullocks articles like this. I just hope at least some readers see it for what it is - a puff piece for the National Retailers Association and other big business.

Great song...great fight

Ian Macfarlane in a new light

I cannot remember where I found this photo. Somewhere on the internet. It's the best shot of Ian Macfarlane I've ever seen - it really brings out his eyes.

Steve Knott of AMMA talking about Abbott's plans to "reform" welfare

It's unclear to us how withholding benefits will facilitate people picking up skills necessary to become job-ready for our industry.

You hit the nail on the head Steve. Now, stop your moaning about having to deal with those pesky unions - you know, the organisations employees have a human right to join and participate in - and we'll be some way to being on the same planet.

chatting with Paul Howes

Well it's been interesting tweeting back and forth with Mr Howes today. I'd encourage some AWU members to get in touch via twitter, as they seem so inept at the usual channels. Maybe you could ask him how you as a member can run for National Secretary...pretty sure they don't directly elect their national leadership - now that's a democratic union huh?

(Paul, correct me if I am wrong - I tried checking out your rules but the FWA website organisations' section is not working)

Thought I'd share this video I uploaded...brings back memories!

2010: A year in (a condensed) review

I must admit I haven't blogged as much as I would have liked. A combination of apathy and being kept amused by other projects (including work) seem to have dissuaded me from the semi-regular blogging I once did.

In terms of worker rights in Australia, 2010 hasn't seen much of a change. Sure, we did see Ark Tribe acquitted of the heinous crime of exercising his right to silence. This was a welcome relief but sadly the insidious institution that is the Australian Building and Construction Commission remains. We also saw the former IR Minister Julia Gillard become Prime Minister.

However, all in all, it appears that the Fair Work Act 2009 is settling in to become an all right piece of legislation, by and large. Sure, there is room for improvement and my comrades and I will continue to press for a more worker friendly agenda. But no one in the labour movement can deny, realistically, that we haven't got something a darn sight better than the piece of shit that was WorkChoices. Workers now have a democratic right to push for enterprise bargaining. A range of topics that were previously 'unlawful' are now legal in enterprise agreements. Bosses don't have all the power any more.

Sure, we have seen some bleating from the mining sector, despite the fact it continues to make billions of dollars. I am always amused at how the Australian Mines and Metals Association (AMMA) is still the biggest cry baby about the new laws. Most employers, arguably affected far more by the changes, have gotten on with it. Yet the AMMA continues harping on about how the laws are so bad, despite the continuing growth in the mining sector.

The reality is that some members of the AMMA now actually have to deal with workers representatives, the unions. They don't like this. That's fine - I don't expect anything less from their ilk. But it'd be a refreshing change if they stopped the bullshit and stopped playing the victim. It's pathetic (and sad that so many people buy into their shit e.g. the mining tax protests earlier this year).

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

TULIP - front for the AWU?

In a pretty pathetic attempt to show that the ACTU is "pro-Israel" the AWU, through its front organisation TULIP has issued a statement about how the new ACTU Assistant Secretary is "pro-Israel".

What the heck is a "pro-Israel" activist? One who supports their actions no matter what? We're talking about a racist state here; the new-apartheid. One side lives in luxury, protected by the army, including stolen lands in the West Bank. The other lives in abject poverty, with high unemployment.

Let's hope that this new Assistant Secretary does not attack the work the of the union movement's charitable arm, Union Aid Abroad APHEDA and their work in Palestine. I wonder if the Zionist stooges in the AWU ever wonder why Palestinians need aid for basic medical supplies and their neighbours in Israel live in 1st world conditions? Probably not.

As an aside you have to love TULIP's statements on boycotts. Hilarious.

Read below (my comments in italics):

WHY NOT BOYCOTT?

1. Because boycotts are counter-productive and strengthen rejectionists and extremists on both sides.

Counter productive, really? Stuff taking an ethical stance on international relations.And if they're so counter-productive then I presume they were a complete failure with dealing with South Africa...oh wait, they weren't.

2. Because boycotts are a blunt instrument and a form of collective punishment.

Yes, they are. That's the point. It'll hopefully get people to pull their finger out.

3. Because the analogy to South Africa is completely false - Israel is not an apartheid state.

If you're Jewish and living in Israel then it's no problem. If you're not Jewish then it can be and certainly is for Palestinians. Replace the words "Jewish" with "white" and "Israel" with "South Africa". Starting to follow yet? If not, then look up the 'Law of Return'.

4. Because what's needed is practical support for efforts to build bridges between Israeli and Palestinian workers and their unions.

I agree. I just don't think you really believe in that. This Crikey article does a very good job explaining why I believe this.

Article about Paul Howes

I cannot stand Paul Howes and make no secret of this. This The Sydney Morning Herald article gave me a chuckle with this paragraph:

Mr Howes, who is just 29, appeared on TV on the night of the coup to say his union was backing Ms Gillard. That move, and his views on issues such as nuclear power (he's a strong advocate), have attracted critics from within the movement with claims he is a ''media tart'' and narcissistic.

So true.

one month on

Well you'd think by the fact that it's taken me a month to write anything that the Federal Election was a disappointment. That's not entirely the case as the electoral success of the Greens around the country was a highlight, considering the appalling performance of the Australian Labor Party.

It also appears that despite a large swing against the ALP that Tony Abbott didn't get a huge swing to the Liberal/National coalition either. That's a relief. On a two-party basis the ALP got more votes (just).

The Greens have a good industrial relations policy. In particular, their promise to get rid of the ABCC is the reason why so many unions have gone cold on the ALP. The ETU in Victoria even donated money to the Greens campaign and helped to get Adam Bandt elected to the seat of Melbourne against another former trade union official in Cath Bowtell formerly of the ACTU.

typical lies and bullshit from Miranda Devine

to quote her most recent post on SMH

"What the green movement has done to Tasmania's timber industry, it will do to the rest of the country. Those purported 13 per cent of people planning to vote for the Greens on Saturday had better understand exactly what they are voting for. It's not about saving trees. It's about ''moving backwards'' to the dark ages."

Tasmania's timber industry was from the Dark Ages. One of the most backwards industries you can have. I am still trying to find the Greens policy entitled 'Taking us to the Dark Ages' or anything of that nature. Funnily enough, it doesn't exist, except in Ms Devine's twisted head.

The Greens embrace technology like no other party ever has. And yet they somehow want to take us back to the Dark Ages. Bit of a contradiction there, don't you think?

sad state of affairs...

Well this unionist is pretty pissed off. The last election saw the ALP re-elected after years of conservative rule and their attempt to destroy the trade union movement.

This time around the only thing I am interested in is seeing how well the Greens do and a secondlys hoping Tony Abbott doesn't become Prime Minister.

I tire of the ACTU being so blatantly pro-ALP despite the fact that there are other parties, including a 'major' minor party in the Greens, offering better policies for workers. Instead of educating workers on how the preferential voting system works (ie a vote for the Greens or socialists etc is not a wasted vote) they basically paint it as ALP v Libs.

Anyway, here's a good video explaining how preferential voting works for the House of Representatives.

Federal Election 2010 - part 1

It's hard to get excited about this election. The ALP are boring and the Liberal Party are led by a repackaged turd.

If you need yet another reason to put the Libs last then I will share this video of what Tony Abbott had to say about Bernie Banton. Pretty much sums up Tony's complete lack of integity perfectly really.

The SDA and McDonald's do a dodgy deal. Only problem is Fair Work Australia won't have a bar of it!

On 23 April 2010 Fair Work Australia rejected the McDonald's Australia Enterprise Agreement 2009 being approved. Rejection of enterprise agreements is not uncommon. However, it normally does not involve the biggest union in Australia, where that union has argued in favour of the sub-standard agreement.

The SDA and McDonald's got together and essentially sold a dud agreement to McDonald's 80,000 employees. These employees are particularly vulnerable as over a third are from non-English speaking backgrounds and a whopping 80% are casual.

Some of the "features" of the agreement include (and to quote Commissioner McKenna directly)

• "the Agreement contains no casual loadings at all for employees in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory"

• “18.3 Wage Increases

  In addition to the wage rates specified in 18.1 and 18.2 employees will be paid the following increases. Provided that an employee will not be paid less than the rate otherwise applicable to that employee under the transitional provisions of the relevant modern award.

  As from 1 July 2010
  NSW, ACT, VIC, SA and NT	FWA Annual Wage Review less $7.50
  WA	FWA Annual Wage Review less $3.84
  TAS	FWA Annual Wage Review less $5.00
  QLD (Level 1 employees)	FWA Annual Wage Review
  QLD (all others)	FWA Annual Wage Review less $7.50

How generous - employees get a pay rise LESS than the minimum wage! Jeez, you've driven a hard bargain there SDA. How did you manage to get such a great deal for workers?

Funnily enough, the agreement was not approved for reasons including "the deficient application; the failure to meet pre-approval requirements; the failure to meet the no disadvantage test; and the inadequacy of some of the proposed written undertakings." This was despite the fact McDonald's was represented by the Australian Industry Group's Matt Moir, who apparently is a barrister. Clearly even he couldn't sell this lemon. I wonder how he sleeps at night, when his job is trying to ensure workers get royally fucked over by their bosses? (I often wonder the same thing about the negotiators from the SDA too).

It's good to see somebody sticking up for workers at McDonald's. Apparently the SDA has given up on looking after the rights of workers at Maccas so it's been left to Fair Work Australia.

And all of this is yet another example of how the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, a so-called union, is an absolute fucking disgrace.

Postscript

The Full Bench overturned the single commissioner's decision. Seems whatever AIG says is gospel these days.

what's this crap?

Now I must admit one of the reasons I am blogging about is that I have a soft spot for Ms Sara Groen, however this article does highlight the double standards women face in the media.

As one commenter says: "I bet if she had a boob job there would be no complaining." Sadly, I think you're on the money mate. Can't have a woman expressing herself now.

I think the last paragraph in the story sums up the situation for women in media perfectly: "It (this story) comes after reporter Christine Spiteri alleged in a statement of claim filed in the Federal Court that Channel 9's head of news John Westacott said that for women to make it in the industry they've 'gotta have fuckability'."