Well back to what I write about best: Australian unions.
We've had 7 months of the ALP in power and whilst it has been a vast improvement over the forces of darkness my doubts are still persistent particularly with respect to worker rights. There are several areas of concern:
1. The evil Australian Building and Construction Commission still exists, harassing unionists with its coercive powers that are a breach of international labour human rights.
2. No more AWAs can be made but many still exist for those forced to sign before March of this year. These can operate for up to 5 years
3. The new system appears that it will be just as restrictive on union right of entry as the Howard regime.
4. "Prohibited content" still looks like it's a reality in the new laws. Parties should not be told what they can and cannot bargain about.
The recent scape-goating of Dean Mighell of the ETU makes it clear that Rudd and co are no friend of the worker. Time will only tell whether the ACTU is truly prepared to put its money where its mouth is and be just as aggressive with its Your Rights at Work as it has been in the past.
19 July 2008
20 January 2008
Come on Rudd! Where is the action for Australian workers?
Well to date Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor Party have done very little for the workers of Australia. Despite all their rhetoric they have not changed one aspect of the insidious laws called WorkChoices passed by the Howard Government.
Many people think that Rudd cannot do anything until the Senate changes in July. To a point this is correct, however with WorkChoices much of the laws are contained in regulations. Regulations are changed simply by 'Ministerial decree'.
Julia Gillard is the new Minister for Industrial Relations, plus a number of other portfolios. She could immediately change the regulations so that Prohibited Content in agreements was nothing. At present Prohibited Content includes things such as union right of entry, trade union training, delegates' rights, payrolls deductions for union fees (but not any other kind of deduction, e.g. for charity). Essentially prohibited content was targetted at reducing union involvement in the workplace and ensuring individual AWAs took precedence, even if the employer and employees didn't want this.
Around the trade union movement it is not a terribly big secret that quite a few union officials are annoyed at the lack of action by the Rudd Government. Many would be able to do their jobs a lot better with the simple removal of some or all of the anti-union Prohibited Content.
So come on Rudd and co. Where's the action? Or is the ALP all talk?
One thing is for certain. The Your Rights at Work campaign must not stop, and it should not be so actively supporting an ALP Government. Seeing Greg Combet jump ship mid campaign into a safe ALP seat, despite saying he had no interest in running for parliament was, in this author's opinion, a cynical ploy to get votes. Greg Combet lost a lot respect for this act.
Unions need to be just as vocal in their criticism of ALP shortcomings if they are not going to be seen merely as a cash cow for the ALP.
Many people think that Rudd cannot do anything until the Senate changes in July. To a point this is correct, however with WorkChoices much of the laws are contained in regulations. Regulations are changed simply by 'Ministerial decree'.
Julia Gillard is the new Minister for Industrial Relations, plus a number of other portfolios. She could immediately change the regulations so that Prohibited Content in agreements was nothing. At present Prohibited Content includes things such as union right of entry, trade union training, delegates' rights, payrolls deductions for union fees (but not any other kind of deduction, e.g. for charity). Essentially prohibited content was targetted at reducing union involvement in the workplace and ensuring individual AWAs took precedence, even if the employer and employees didn't want this.
Around the trade union movement it is not a terribly big secret that quite a few union officials are annoyed at the lack of action by the Rudd Government. Many would be able to do their jobs a lot better with the simple removal of some or all of the anti-union Prohibited Content.
So come on Rudd and co. Where's the action? Or is the ALP all talk?
One thing is for certain. The Your Rights at Work campaign must not stop, and it should not be so actively supporting an ALP Government. Seeing Greg Combet jump ship mid campaign into a safe ALP seat, despite saying he had no interest in running for parliament was, in this author's opinion, a cynical ploy to get votes. Greg Combet lost a lot respect for this act.
Unions need to be just as vocal in their criticism of ALP shortcomings if they are not going to be seen merely as a cash cow for the ALP.
08 January 2008
good on you Anna...
Queensland Parliament
Question Time Thursday 18th of October 2007
Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that nearly 90 per cent of her cabinet is made up of union members, former union officials and party hacks—a figure higher than the wannabe proposed loser Rudd cabinet? Is the Premier now setting the union domination benchmark for Kevin Rudd?
Mr Lucas: That’s a Walkley Award winning forensic job.
Ms BLIGH: Yes, a Walkley Award winning, forensically designed expose of the great secret of the Bligh cabinet. They are union members. Freedom of association, that is, the right to belong to a trade union, is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under the federal law of this country.
Mr Copeland interjected.
Mr Seeney: It is a prerequisite on the application form.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham and I warn the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms BLIGH: I remember a time when the Liberal Party of Australia stood up for the human rights of the citizens of this country. Now we find an all-out campaign to swing to the Far Right and undermine the human rights of the citizens of this country.
Dr Flegg: There is an equal opportunity rule, too, you know.
Mr SPEAKER: If the Premier would not mind sitting down for a moment. I will give her some extra time. This is a ridiculous situation. The member for Maroochydore comments in a low tone. She does not think we can hear her. I think we are all hearing her. I say to the member for Moggill that he is a serial interjector when questions are being answered. I have already warned under standing order 253 both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham. The members of the opposition are asking these questions. I am going to give any minister the chance to answer them.
Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question again and I will do my best to answer it against the opposition’s unruly, ill-disciplined and disgraceful behaviour this morning. I believe the question was whether 90 per cent of the members of my cabinet are union members. I think the answer to that is no. I believe that 100 per cent of my cabinet are members of relevant trade unions. Not only are they members of their relevant trade unions; they are proud members of their relevant trade unions. They are proud of that, because trade unions have been one of the organisations that have built this country. They secured the eight-hour day. They secured decent working conditions so that people could feed their families and be safe in their workplaces. There is no shame in it—none whatsoever. The member wants to come snivelling in here doing the dirty work of John Howard. We do not resile for one minute from the fact that people on this side of the House care about the interests of working people. In terms of the talent of my cabinet, I will stack them up one by one against every runt of the litter that the other side lines up. My cabinet will be seen for what they are: the most talented cabinet that Queensland has ever had.
My favourite line is "I will stack them up one by one against every runt of the litter that the other side lines up. "
Question Time Thursday 18th of October 2007
Mr McARDLE: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that nearly 90 per cent of her cabinet is made up of union members, former union officials and party hacks—a figure higher than the wannabe proposed loser Rudd cabinet? Is the Premier now setting the union domination benchmark for Kevin Rudd?
Mr Lucas: That’s a Walkley Award winning forensic job.
Ms BLIGH: Yes, a Walkley Award winning, forensically designed expose of the great secret of the Bligh cabinet. They are union members. Freedom of association, that is, the right to belong to a trade union, is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and under the federal law of this country.
Mr Copeland interjected.
Mr Seeney: It is a prerequisite on the application form.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham and I warn the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms BLIGH: I remember a time when the Liberal Party of Australia stood up for the human rights of the citizens of this country. Now we find an all-out campaign to swing to the Far Right and undermine the human rights of the citizens of this country.
Dr Flegg: There is an equal opportunity rule, too, you know.
Mr SPEAKER: If the Premier would not mind sitting down for a moment. I will give her some extra time. This is a ridiculous situation. The member for Maroochydore comments in a low tone. She does not think we can hear her. I think we are all hearing her. I say to the member for Moggill that he is a serial interjector when questions are being answered. I have already warned under standing order 253 both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Cunningham. The members of the opposition are asking these questions. I am going to give any minister the chance to answer them.
Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question again and I will do my best to answer it against the opposition’s unruly, ill-disciplined and disgraceful behaviour this morning. I believe the question was whether 90 per cent of the members of my cabinet are union members. I think the answer to that is no. I believe that 100 per cent of my cabinet are members of relevant trade unions. Not only are they members of their relevant trade unions; they are proud members of their relevant trade unions. They are proud of that, because trade unions have been one of the organisations that have built this country. They secured the eight-hour day. They secured decent working conditions so that people could feed their families and be safe in their workplaces. There is no shame in it—none whatsoever. The member wants to come snivelling in here doing the dirty work of John Howard. We do not resile for one minute from the fact that people on this side of the House care about the interests of working people. In terms of the talent of my cabinet, I will stack them up one by one against every runt of the litter that the other side lines up. My cabinet will be seen for what they are: the most talented cabinet that Queensland has ever had.
My favourite line is "I will stack them up one by one against every runt of the litter that the other side lines up. "
30 December 2007
The SDA: social agenda of the Catholic Right
The SDA will be a running theme throughout my blogs. This blogger's dislike for this union stems from not only the fact that it does not fight for its members but also its incredibly socially conservative agenda. Having been a member of the SDA I am well aware of how utterly backward they are.
More will be discussed about the SDA's inability to fight for its members at a later time. With regards to the conservative social agenda National Secretary of the SDA, Joe de Bruyn, stated at an ALP conference in April 2007 the following:
"It (the Tasmanian scheme giving gay couples equality before the law) robs marriage of its unique and privileged status and it puts it on the same level as a radically different type of union."
He also said:
"At a time when we are fighting to protect working families from Howard's Work Choices we are at the same time attacking the status of those same families."
Fortunately de Bruyn's comments were given the abuse they deserved.
The unionist (this blogger) recently heard, admittedly through hearsay, about what was being taught to young people being trained as delegates for the SDA. One of the first items on the agenda was to talk about the evils of homosexuality and the break down of the family. If this is true it is a sad indictment on the SDA. It is disgusting.
One has to ask how representative Joe de Bruyn is of the the members he supposedly represents. There are over 200,000 members of the SDA. And how many of them voted for Joe? Not one, due to the fact that the state branches vote in the Federal officials. Joe has led the SDA since at least the late 1970s. I am not sure when he was "voted" in so if anyone does know, I am all ears.
It is high time the SDA members around Australia took a more active interest in how their union was run. Every fourth year elections are held around Australia to fill (at least) the positions of Secretary-Treasurer. There are also other unpaid positions which help control the power (elections for these positions are staggered), but in all unions the control of day to day running lies with the Secretary.
In Queensland nominations will be called on the first Monday in May (5 May 2008) for the positions of Secretary-Treasurer and First Assistant Secretary. As long as you have been a member of the Queensland branch of the SDA for at least a month beforehand you are eligible to run for either position. You do not have to be 18 to run or vote! Check out the Electoral Commission of Queensland website on or slightly after the above date for details.
So if you're an SDA member and want people leading your union who actually understand the issues of retail workers, as opposed to using union funds to run their anti-gay, anti-abortion, conservative agenda, then put your name up to run in an election being held. It is high time REAL retail workers ran the SDA. Not right-wing ALP hacks
More will be discussed about the SDA's inability to fight for its members at a later time. With regards to the conservative social agenda National Secretary of the SDA, Joe de Bruyn, stated at an ALP conference in April 2007 the following:
"It (the Tasmanian scheme giving gay couples equality before the law) robs marriage of its unique and privileged status and it puts it on the same level as a radically different type of union."
He also said:
"At a time when we are fighting to protect working families from Howard's Work Choices we are at the same time attacking the status of those same families."
Fortunately de Bruyn's comments were given the abuse they deserved.
The unionist (this blogger) recently heard, admittedly through hearsay, about what was being taught to young people being trained as delegates for the SDA. One of the first items on the agenda was to talk about the evils of homosexuality and the break down of the family. If this is true it is a sad indictment on the SDA. It is disgusting.
One has to ask how representative Joe de Bruyn is of the the members he supposedly represents. There are over 200,000 members of the SDA. And how many of them voted for Joe? Not one, due to the fact that the state branches vote in the Federal officials. Joe has led the SDA since at least the late 1970s. I am not sure when he was "voted" in so if anyone does know, I am all ears.
It is high time the SDA members around Australia took a more active interest in how their union was run. Every fourth year elections are held around Australia to fill (at least) the positions of Secretary-Treasurer. There are also other unpaid positions which help control the power (elections for these positions are staggered), but in all unions the control of day to day running lies with the Secretary.
In Queensland nominations will be called on the first Monday in May (5 May 2008) for the positions of Secretary-Treasurer and First Assistant Secretary. As long as you have been a member of the Queensland branch of the SDA for at least a month beforehand you are eligible to run for either position. You do not have to be 18 to run or vote! Check out the Electoral Commission of Queensland website on or slightly after the above date for details.
So if you're an SDA member and want people leading your union who actually understand the issues of retail workers, as opposed to using union funds to run their anti-gay, anti-abortion, conservative agenda, then put your name up to run in an election being held. It is high time REAL retail workers ran the SDA. Not right-wing ALP hacks
27 December 2007
Australian unions and democracy
If Australian unions want to be taken seriously then internal reform is a necessary evil. Unions cannot take the high ground on being the representatives of Australian workers if they do not allow workers to participate fully in the way they operate. To put it bluntly, some unions are incredibly anti-democratic and this has been done on purpose to stimy opposition and ensure the incumbent regime can never be ousted.
The best example of this would have to be the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). This union is not notorious for its socially conservative agenda and cosy relationship with employers. It is referred to as a "bosses union" by most other unions.
The SDA entrenches the power of its executive at the national level by cleverly having a collegiate system for the voting. So for a rival group to take over the union they would have to win most of the elections run at a state level. Without a concerted national campaign and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars a rival group could never take over the union.
But it must be said that most unions are not crash hot at running democratic elections at all. Whilst all meet the letter of the law, virtually none take the question of being democratic seriously. This author has worked at two unions that went through elections recently. On both occasions the union advertised the election in the capital city newspaper in the Public Notices section, as required by law. The Public Notices section is a part of the paper that virtually no one reads!
Neither union decided to inform its members in its regular journal that an election was upcoming. Neither sent out letters to members or made any other attempt at communicating that its members could participate in democracy; a right of being a member. After the "election" was over the incumbents were quite proud that they "won" without having to do anything at all. A brief mention was made in a journal after the election was over that the incumbents' team had "won".
This author has spoken to at least one person in an elected union council position who was rather bemused at the "democracy" of the union. When a position came up mid-term he was not informed it was up for election, even though fairly high up in the union. Someone else was appointed by the Branch Secretary and approved by the executive. So much for openness. This is only small example, but it goes to highlight the hypocrisy of some unions when they talk about democracy and being the workers representatives.
At the very minimum unions should have to properly inform their own members that an election is coming up! This should be done by a prominent information notice in a union publication sent to all members or a letter sent to all members. This would be a start.
The best example of this would have to be the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). This union is not notorious for its socially conservative agenda and cosy relationship with employers. It is referred to as a "bosses union" by most other unions.
The SDA entrenches the power of its executive at the national level by cleverly having a collegiate system for the voting. So for a rival group to take over the union they would have to win most of the elections run at a state level. Without a concerted national campaign and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars a rival group could never take over the union.
But it must be said that most unions are not crash hot at running democratic elections at all. Whilst all meet the letter of the law, virtually none take the question of being democratic seriously. This author has worked at two unions that went through elections recently. On both occasions the union advertised the election in the capital city newspaper in the Public Notices section, as required by law. The Public Notices section is a part of the paper that virtually no one reads!
Neither union decided to inform its members in its regular journal that an election was upcoming. Neither sent out letters to members or made any other attempt at communicating that its members could participate in democracy; a right of being a member. After the "election" was over the incumbents were quite proud that they "won" without having to do anything at all. A brief mention was made in a journal after the election was over that the incumbents' team had "won".
This author has spoken to at least one person in an elected union council position who was rather bemused at the "democracy" of the union. When a position came up mid-term he was not informed it was up for election, even though fairly high up in the union. Someone else was appointed by the Branch Secretary and approved by the executive. So much for openness. This is only small example, but it goes to highlight the hypocrisy of some unions when they talk about democracy and being the workers representatives.
At the very minimum unions should have to properly inform their own members that an election is coming up! This should be done by a prominent information notice in a union publication sent to all members or a letter sent to all members. This would be a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
