Why marriage equality is union business

Lisbeth Latham

In the lead up to and following the announcement of the plebiscite, now survey, on changing the Marriage Act, unions have played a prominent role in promoting and resourcing the Yes campaign.

Senior union officials have been speakers at rallies, there have been large union contingents at protest marches and unions — especially peak bodies such as Victorian Trades Hall Council and the Australian Council of Trade Unions — have been providing infrastructure to help build the capacity for the campaign to ensure maximum participation and support for the Yes side.

This strong position in support of marriage equality has attracted criticism from some union members as both a distraction from the “core business” of unions — wages and conditions — and as a failure by unions to “respect the views of members who are opposed to marriage equality”.

However, support by unions for marriage equality is consistent with long traditions within the labour movement of solidarity with oppressed and marginalised communities, and in support of democratic rights — approaches that help to build and strengthen the capacity of the union movement to win improvements for members, not just on the job, but throughout society.

Examples of the kinds of criticisms that unions supporting marriage equality have received can be seen on a recent post on the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union’s (CFMEU) Construction & General Division’s Facebook page of an email to the union by a member.

The email was from a gay CFMEU member thanking the union for taking a strong position in support of marriage equality and for organising a toolbox discussion around the issue on their worksite. It also raised concerns about the homophobic behaviour by some workmates during the discussion.

At the time of writing, this post has been shared 204 times and had attracted 123 comments. While the vast majority of these comments have been positive, there have been negative commenters who argue that the CFMEU’s support for marriage equality is a distraction from the union achieving improvements in wages and conditions for members and a violation of the rights of those members who do not support marriage equality.

These criticisms are not new and reflect a conservative view of unionism in which the role of the union in the lives of its members starts and finishes at the entrance to the workplace and unions should not seek to mobilise its members and resources on broader political questions.

The current Marriage Act and the No campaign are having a negative impact on the working lives of LGBTI union members. The act denies these union members of fundamental rights and the “debate” around the survey is contributing to a toxic culture where a section of society feel justified in vilifying LGBTI people in the street and in the workplace.

This alone is a strong basis for unions to support their members and push for marriage equality as it is the embodiment of the core union tenant that “an injury to one is an injury to all”.

Moreover as, CFMEU South Australia branch secretary Aaron Cartlege said in his address to the marriage equality rally in Adelaide: “Why does the CFMEU back the Yes vote? I'll tell you why we back the Yes vote ... for 15 years we’ve been campaigning because we’re discriminated against on building sites with draconian laws that target our members every day.

“How can we be calling for ‘one law for all’ and then have a different view when it comes to this?"

The conservative vision of unionism runs counter to the long tradition within Australian unionism, particularly within left unions such as the CFMEU, which sees the union movement as having a vital role to play in building a better world for all workers.

This vision has seen Australian unions actively campaign around issues affecting working people globally: opposition to conscription; refusing to load pig iron destined for the Japanese war machine that had invaded China; refusing to load Dutch ships in support of the Indonesian national liberation struggle; supporting striking Aboriginal pastoral workers and the struggle of Aboriginal land rights; opposition to South African Apartheid; green bans on developments that robbed communities of environmental and cultural heritage; opposition to Australian involvement in the Vietnam war and the Iraq war; in support of the East Timorese liberation struggle; and in support of the right of refugees to claim asylum in Australia, to name just a few.

These campaigns did not lead directly to improved wages and conditions on the job — but they contributed to the mobilising capacity of unions both on and off the job and helped to build respect within the broader community for the central role that unions play in building a socially just and liveable planet.
For all these reasons marriage equality is union business.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Lisbeth Latham is a member of the Socialist Alliance


This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1154

Read more...

Unionist faces jail for not answering ABCC questions — abolish anti-union secret police!

Lisbeth Latham

On August 11, Ark Tribe, a member of the South Australian Branch of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), will appear in court charged with refusing to answer questions from the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).

If he is found guilty he faces a maximum six months in jail.


Tribe is the second member of the CFMEU to face trial for refusing to cooperate with the ABCC. In November, the ABCC dropped a similar case against CFMEU Victorian branch assistant secretary Noel Washington.

Despite union opposition to the undemocratic powers of the ABCC, the ALP government, under PM Kevin Rudd, plans to keep most of the ABCC's powers under a new body — the Building Industry Inspectorate.

Unions, particularly blue-collar unions, have pushed for the total abolition of the ABCC since the election of the Rudd government in late 2007.

The ABCC discriminates against building union members by treating them as criminals and takes away many of their rights, including the right to silence.

The ABCC’s coercive powers are designed to intimidate building workers. It can order any person it deems to have information relevant to an investigation to face interrogation or face six months’ jail.

Ironically, the penalty for an individual failing to cooperate with the ABCC is far worse than the penalty for many of the “violations” the ABCC investigates.

Unions have also said the ALP has a mandate to remove all of the Howard government's anti-worker legislation. Most who voted for the ALP did so in the belief the ALP would abolish all of the anti-union legislation of former PM John Howard.

A ruling by the International Labour Organisation in March has increased the pressure on the government. The ILO said the ABCC and the associated Australian Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act breach Australia's commitments as a signatory to the ILO's conventions.

Yet the government is trying to justify keeping most of the ABCC's powers with the argument a “tough cop” has to deal with “lawlessness” in the building industry.

The Rudd government is employing the same false argument the Howard government used to justify the introduction of the union-busting ABCC.

Howard set up the ABCC in 2005 under the cover of recommendations made by a royal commission into the building industry led by former judge Terence Cole. The government launched the Cole commission, with $60 million in funding, to investigate “unlawful activity” in the construction industry. Unions condemned the commission as a blatantly anti-union exercise.

When the commission was launched in 2001, the ALP described it as a witch-hunt against the militant construction unions, in particular the CFMEU.

Ninety percent of the commission's time was devoted to allegations against building unions. Little or no time was devoted to investigating allegations against employers. Unions were denied the right to cross-examine witnesses who made allegations against them.

Despite the commission’s anti-union terms of reference, Cole was able to find only 392 cases of possible unlawful behaviour in the industry over a seven-year period. The vast majority of these “unlawful” acts were instances of unions holding on-site union meetings; union attempts to ensure all workers on sites were union members; and work stoppages over unsafe working conditions.

Although 30 of the incidents were associated with employer behaviour, these were largely instances of employers paying strike pay.

The commission failed to make any recommendations to stop employer breaches of occupational health and safety laws, despite the shocking one work-related death a week record of the industry.

The commission’s terms of reference did not include an examination of employer’s schemes to rob workers of their lawful entitlements.

The ABCC, with its power to initiate prosecutions, was created by the Howard government to crush the industrial muscle of the building unions and help drive down wages and conditions in the industry.

The Rudd government's commitment to transfer most of the ABCC's powers to the Building Industry Inspectorate reflects that the ALP, like the Liberals, is committed to attacking the rights of workers to organise in order to protect bosses’ profits.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly Issue #804

Read more...

Rio Tinto announces it will sack 14 000 workers globally

Lisbeth Latham

Rio Tinto, one of the world’s largest mining companies announced on December 10 that it would shed 14, 000 jobs from its global workforce as part of an effort to reduce its $38.9 billion debt by $10 Billion by the end of 2009. This move reflects the impact of the global economic downturn on the mining industry, which faces not only declining demand but also falling commodity prices. As a consequence miners who in the last year have looked to expand their production capacity are now lowering output.


Under the plan 5,500 of Rio Tinto's of 97, 000 core workers will be sacked along 8, 500 of the comapny's 15, 000 contractors. Rio’s projected future savings also includes a rapid acceleration in the outsourcing and off-shoring of the company’s IT and procurement during 2009 it likely that there will be more shifts in the structure of its workforce. Rio Tinto expects to make an annual saving from the current round of job cuts of $1.2 billion annually. Their total payout to redundant workers is estimated at $400 million.

In addition to the job cuts Rio Tinto is other cost cutting mechanisms. These include:

• Reductions in operating costs by $1.3 billion per annum in addition to the savings made from shedding job;
• A reduction its capital expenditure in 2009 from $9 billion to $4 billion resulting in the company cancelling or delaying projects;
• Holding the dividend payment at the 2007 level of 136 US cents and stopping the 20% increase in 2008 or 2009;
• Selling off some of the companies assets
  

A significant factor in the difficulties facing has been the rapid decline in the Chinese economy. Australian Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens on December 9 said “China’s economy has slowed much more quickly than anyone had forecast. Our own estimates suggest that Chinese industrial production probably declined over the four months to October”. While Stevens, acknowledged that some of the weakness could be attributable to the Olympics, “more than that seems to have been occurring. I am not sure that many economic forecasters have fully appreciated this yet. There is every chance that the rate of growth of China’s GDP is currently noticeably below the 8 per cent pace that is embodied in various forecasts for 2009”.

During November, China’s imports and exports had fallen from the previous months figures 17.9 and 2.2 percent respectively, compared with analysts estimates of growth of 12 and 15 percent. In October, China’s imports had grown 15.6% while exports had grown 19.2% over the previous 12 months.

On December 10, The Times reported that Rio Tinto’s senior management is predicting that the Chinese government will be able to stimulate its economy sufficiently next year to allow the demand for raw materials to rebound in the second half of last year. Stevens, also argued that as a consequence of the Chinese government, who had been previously attempting to cool the Chinese economy, have begun to implement expansionary policies, “so there is a good chance that China’s economy will be looking stronger in a year’s time than it does today”. Whether any improvement in the Chinese will sufficiently boost the commodities market to boost Rio Tinto’s financial situation remains to be seen.

Not all of Rio Tinto’s problems are a consequence of the global economic downturn. While all mining companies will be looking to reduce production which may include not just reducing the output at individual mines, but the closure and mothballing of entire mines – particularly those with poor grade quality, which were only viable while commodity prices were at their highest. However a substantial component of Rio Tinto’s debts are the consequence of its attempts to re-position itself within the commodities market through its acquisition in late 2007 of Canadian Aluminum producer ALCAN for $38 billion while the market was at its highest. It is the ensuring high debt levels, some of which are due for repayment by late 2009, that have forced the current round of job shedding.

It is unclear how these job losses will be spread across the company’s global work force, ABC News reported on December 11, that the specifics of the cuts are expected in the New Year. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which covers workers at Rio Tinto's hugely profitable Coal and Iron Ore mines, has indicated that it will fight job losses in Australia. CFMEU Mining Division President Tony Maher, telling the Sydney Morning Herald, "There's no justification of cutting back the workforce, it shows the folly of taking on tens of billions of debt”.

Read more...

Pilbara Train Drivers Escalate Campaign

Lisbeth Latham

Train drivers working in Rio Tinto’s Pilbara iron ore division escalated their campaign for a union collective agreement by holding two consecutive 12-hour stoppages starting at midday on October 22.

The stoppages followed a strike on October 11, the first industrial action Rio Tinto has experienced in the Pilbara for 16 years.


The train drivers are demanding that Rio Tinto negotiate with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for a union agreement to replace the Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA — individual contracts) that workers are currently employed under.

The CFMEU has been attempting to negotiate with Rio Tinto since July, when it sent the company a draft agreement. The company responded that it will not negotiate with the union and “prefers to directly engage with its employees”.

On October 22, CFMEU mining division national president Tony Maher said: “Rio Tinto’s response is extraordinarily hypocritical. For two decades they’ve said that the secret to the company’s success is its direct relationship with employees, that employees are valued and listened to. Well, these employees have a view and have expressed it, but the company isn’t listening.”

CFMEU mining division WA state secretary Gary Wood said the number of drivers participating in any further industrial action will increase as the AWAs they were forced to sign expire.

“Those employed in the last 16 years haven’t had a choice; signing an AWA was a condition of employment”, Wood explained. “Now, as the contracts expire, they’re voicing their disapproval. The solution is in Rio Tinto’s hands. They just need to sit down and talk with their workforce and their representatives.”

The train drivers have received messages of solidarity from the Australian Workers Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and the construction division of the CFMEU. To send a message of solidarity email cfmeuka@tpg.com.au.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #772

Read more...

CFMEU Conducts First Strike on Rio Tinto's Pilbara Operations in 16 Years

Lisbeth Latham

Train drivers employed by Rio Tinto’s Iron Ore operations in transporting iron ore in the Pilbara struck on October 11 and will stage a 24-hour stoppage on October 22 .

The strike action, the first industrial action on a Rio Tinto project in the Pilbara for 16 years, is aimed at winning a union collective agreement between Rio Tinto and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), rather than the non-union agreement that Rio Tinto is pushing to replace the current Australian Workplace Agreement. Currently 39 of 315 train drivers are eligible to strike, however the CFMEU expects more to join in as their AWAs expire. Central to the dispute is Rio Tinto’s plan to implement automated train operations (ATOs).


The CFMEU’s draft agreement put forward in July includes three clauses on ATOs:

• The establishment of a consultative committee with equal numbers of management and employee representatives to review all aspects of the ATO implementation;
• No forced redundancies of existing rail employees as a result of ATOs;
• That ATO locomotives be set up by a qualified driver and accompanied on their route by a driver qualified to operate the route.

Additional clauses include:

• That the workers receive a minimum salary increase of no less than the wage price index for WA that year;
• That the market allowance of $20,000, which Rio Tinto had paid to help retain workers, be absorbed into the base salary;
• That changes in the roster can only be done by agreement with workers;
• Any changes in the roster require seven days notice.
  

Rio Tinto has refused to negotiate with unions. The company has attempted to defend this, by portraying the train drivers as greedy and threatening the future of Australia, in an attempt to undermine public support for the workers. Sam Walsh, chief executive of Iron Ore operations, told the October 10 Australian that these were the highest paid workers in the Pilbara on $160,000-$210,000, yet “they are seeking guaranteed wage increases of between 4.9per cent to 5.7per cent, which we wouldn’t agree to”.

Tony Maher, CFMEU mining division national president, said on October 14: “What the dispute in the Pilbara is really about is the right of all Australians to bargain collectively … the right to bargain collectively is a basic democratic right of all Australians, why should the train drivers in the Pilbara be any different?”

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #771

Read more...

Australian Construction Workers Fight For Democratic Rights

Lisbeth Latham

Australian construction unions have launched a new campaign demanding that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) government of Kevin Rudd abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Despite being elected on widespread working class anger against anti-union laws, the Rudd government have pledged to keep the ABCC in place at least until 2010, with the possibility it role be shifted to another government agency.


The ABCC was formed in 2005 following the passing of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act. Much of the legislation contained in the BCIIA had been recommendations of the 2001-2003 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry (Royal Commissions are the highest level of public inquiry in Australia). It was established to investigate the “extent of unlawful activity in the construction industry”. Commissioner Terrance Cole found 392 incidents that might constitute of unlawful behavior in the industry over a seven year period. The vast majority of these were instances of unions holding on site union meetings, attempts to ensure all workers on sites were union members and work stoppages over unsafe working conditions. Thirty of the incidents were associated with employer behaviour, these were largely instances of employers paying strike pay. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission did not include examining unsafe work practices pursued by employers or the use of shelf companies which are closed down robbing workers of their entitlements.

REDUCING THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS
The BCIIA undermine the industrial effectiveness of Australia’s construction unions. In doing this it made illegal a wide range of previously legal industrial activity including:

• Banning collective agreements from including retrospective pay rises;
• Banning pattern bargaining, where unions seek common pay deals across hundreds of different employers;
• Increasing penalties for industrial action occurring outside bargaining periods to $110,000 Aud for unions and up to $22,000 for individuals;
• Requiring unions to hold secret ballots of their members before taking protected industrial action, including on urgent health and safety issues;
• Introducing a mandatory 21-day cooling off period after two weeks of protected industrial action;

In order to enforce the BCIIA, the ABCC was given extra-ordinary powers to investigate and prosecute workers. If the ABCC believes on reasonable grounds that a person has information or documents relevant to an investigation, or is capable of giving evidence relevant to investigation it can require a person to give the information, or documents or attend an interview. At an interview the ABCC can require a person to:

• Reveal all their phone and email records, whether of a business or personal nature;
• Report not only on their own activities, but those of their fellow workers;
• Reveal their membership of an organisation, such as a union;
• Report on discussions in private union meetings or other meetings of workers;
• The penalty for failing to hand over documents or answer all questions asked is six months imprisonment.

A TOUGH COP FOR A TOUGH INDUSTRY?
The Howard government, and now the Rudd government have justified the need for the ABCC, on the basis that the construction industry has a “culture of lawlessness”. However there is growing evidence that the ABCC focuses overwhelmingly on policing construction workers and their unions. Federal Court Justice Jeffrey Spender on October 8, said that the ABCC’s prosecution of the Queensland Plumbing Division of the Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union and its state secretary Brad O’Carroll, was “misconceived and completely without merit”, and if the “Commission was even handed in discharging its tasks of ensuring industrial harmony and lawfulness in the building and construction industry proceedings” would have launched against the company that the CEPU had been in dispute with.

TARGETING ORDINARY WORKERS
These laws have been impacting on ordinary construction workers across Australia. The largest case was the charging of 107 members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, following a strike by 400 CFMEU members of the in Western Australia following the sacking of the Health and Safety Officer on their work site. Of these workers, 87 of the workers were given fines of between $8,400 Aud and $10,000, Aud the ABCC had sort the maximum penalty of $22, 600 Aud.

A CFMEU vice president charged with coercing crane operators into negotiations faces six months jail time in December for refusing to appear before the commission.
The Australian trade union's say similar investigations have been little more than excuses for union-bashing politicians to seek publicity.

In September, police in Victoria state withdrew charges against a building worker after two years of investigation. The union member was fingered by the commission, which claimed he threatened to kill inspectors when they visited his worksite.

“They besmirched the name of an innocent man in a desperate attempt to portray construction unions as bullies and thugs,” said Dave Noonan, national secretary of the CFMEU. “It is a disgrace, an abuse of power and corruption of the political process.”

[For more information on the ABCC and the campaign against it visit http://www.rightsonsite.org.au/.]

This is an expanded version of an article that appeared in the November issue o f Labor Notes this version has been submitted to Union Syndicale Solidaires International the Journal of French Union Federation Union Syndicale Solidaires.

Read more...

Union recognition ballots:The US experience

Lisbeth Latham

Among the proposals included in the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ industrial relations legislation policy, adopted at its October conference, were provisions for unions to be able to hold elections to win recognition in workplaces where the boss refuses to bargain with them. These ballots are aimed at addressing the lack of a mechanism whereby unions can make an employer negotiate a collective agreement for workers. Such ballots have been a feature of the US industrial relations system for over 70 years.


Union recognition ballots were introduced in the US in 1935, in the wake of the mass labour upsurge that began in 1934. Prior to their introduction, employers had traditionally countered organising campaigns though massive repression using private security guards, police and the National Guard. In 1934, thousands of workers in Minnesota, San Francisco, Toledo and across US coalfields fought pitched street battles as part of a series of general strikes that won union recognition and significant improvements in working conditions.

Faced with an increasingly confident working class inspired by these victories, the Roosevelt administration introduced a National Labor Review Board (NLRB) provision for union recognition to blunt the rising-tide of union struggles. In 1947, the Truman administration passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which allowed for derecognition ballots in already-organised workplaces.

During their first 30 years, the ballots played a role in helping the growth of the US union movement. During the post-war boom, US companies were able to afford regular pay rises and improvements in working conditions for the core of unions’ membership in the old industrial heartland of the north-east and mid-west.

In a period of rising profits, capital was happy to negotiate with unions. But the sharp economic crisis in the world economy and the boom’s end saw employers begin an aggressive campaign to strip wages and conditions that unions had won, by actively attempting to keep the US union-free.

NLRB recognition and derecognition elections have become the central mechanism through which US bosses have attempted to keep themselves union-free or rid themselves of a union presence. In the November 5, 2005, In These Times Christopher Hayes wrote that 75% of US employers’ contract outside union-busters to help run their campaigns to defeat ballots. The organisations employ a range of tactics to undermine organising efforts and intimidate workers. These include:

• Shifting known anti-union workers into workplaces that are holding ballots;
• Holding closed meetings where management shows videos about workplaces that have closed - down after being unionised;
• Sacking and/or transferring out known union activists;
• Holding one-on-one interviews with workers to intimidate them into not joining unions.

The most notorious US union-busting company is retail giant Wal-Mart, which circulates guides to its store managers about how to identify and respond to attempts by workers to organise. Wal-Mart’s determination to remain union-free can be seen from its response when workers win ballots in its stores.

In 2000, when butchers in Jacksonville, Texas, voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers, Wal-Mart responded by announcing that henceforth it would sell only pre-cut meat in all of its supercentres, fired four of the union supporters and transferred the rest into other divisions (the action was ruled illegal by the NLRB three years later). When workers in Quebec successfully organised their store, Wal-Mart closed the entire store.

The impact of these actions has been a decline in recognition ballots. Despite expending millions of dollars on organising new workers — the AFL-CIO union federation alone has an organising budget of US$10 million — in 2002 US unions won 54% of ballots held, with 78,284 joining unions as a consequence of the vote. Eighty-thousand workers — just 0.1% of the US work force — are being organised into unions through ballots each year and only 9% of US workers are members of unions, compared to 500,000-per-year during the 1950s, when 35% of workers were members of unions.

Even more worrying for US unions is that they are less successful in defeating derecognition ballots. This reduced win-rate reflects that winning a recognition ballot does not force the bosses to bargain in good faith, and they are more likely resist a union’s attempt to secure a contract when they know that they can use the failure to help push the union out in a subsequent ballot. According to the AFL-CIO, unions secure a collective agreement in less than two-thirds of workplaces after a successful recognition ballot.

A sharp rise in labour-practice violations by US bosses has been associated with limited penalties for companies found guilty of violating workers’ rights. While having stronger penalties could reduce the likelihood that employers will attempt to intimidate workers (depending on the cost of fines compared to that of having a unionised work force for employers), the penalties would be permanently under threat. Additionally, this builds reliance on courts to protect workers’ rights — rather than building unions’ strength and capacity to defend workers — undermining the confidence of workers to take on the boss and organise.

In industries with high employment turnovers, any delay on a ballot, such as court action around violations by employers, can help undermine unionising drives, so that even when unions win court cases to defend workers’ rights they lose the ballot.

Although winning union recognition is an important step in building a union, on its own it doesn’t build an organisation able to consistently win contracts. Getting people to vote in a recognition ballot is different to getting them to participate in an industrial campaign to win a contract, which can turn into a war of attrition between workers on the one hand and the boss on the other.

In the US, some of the most successful organising campaigns have bypassed the ballot process entirely, such as the Justice for Janitors campaign. Similar to the strategy followed in the Australian construction industry by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, this focused not only on mobilising members and supporters to place maximum pressure on employers. It also sought to shift the focus of the campaign from subcontractors who employ janitors, who have extremely tight profit margins and are more difficult to win contracts from. Instead, Justice for Janitors has targeted the larger companies, such as hotels and resorts, to force them to pay more to subcontractors and to only contract unionised subcontractors.

Union recognition ballots undermine the democratic right of workers to be members of unions, as they remove the right of individual workers to join a union and be represented by it. Any call for union-recognition ballots by the labour movement reflects a significant retreat from the right of unions to represent workers wherever they have members.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #692

Read more...

'What do we want? Howard out!'

Lisbeth Latham

Despite heavy showers, 20,000 people joined the Unions WA-organised rally in Perth on June 30 against PM John Howard’s proposed industrial relations laws. Union contingents converged on the Perth Cultural Centre with chants of “What do we want? Howard out!”


The largest union contingents came from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). Thousands of workers from the state’s public sector joined the rally, after the state Labor government decided that public sector workers would not be docked pay if they took an extended lunch break to attend.

Rally speakers included ACTU president Sharan Burrow, Western Australian Premier Geoff Gallop and ALP federal industrial relations spokesperson Stephen Smith. The rally heard greetings from the Southern Initiative on Globalisation and Trade Union Rights conference that had been meeting in Bangkok and had led a protest at the Australian embassy to condemn the Howard government’s attacks on workers’ rights.

A series of protests across regional Western Australia began on June 27, when 3000 workers rallied in Karratha. Workers voted to follow the rally with a 24-hour strike. On June 28, 100 workers rallied in Geraldton, while 500 workers attended each of the protests held in Albany and Bunbury on June 30.

Chris Cain, secretary of the Western Australian branch of the MUA, told Green Left Weekly “The rally here in Perth was absolutely fantastic!”, noting how the “tremendous turnouts” in the regional centres “really inspired workers all around WA and here in Perth to get on board”. Cain said “the way the unions, churches, politicians, unemployed and the community came together was great”.

Unions WA secretary Dave Robinson described the rally as “a phenomenal display from the community in Western Australia”. He told Green Left Weekly that people “do not accept what John Howard is proposing for them” and that Howard has “no mandate to continue down this path”.

Jim McIlroy reports that around 20,000 workers crammed into the King George Square in Brisbane on June 30, spilling over into nearby streets. Large contingents of up to 2000 each from the ETU, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), the construction union and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) marched from separate rallying points.

According to Queensland Council of Unions general secretary Grace Grace, the rally was the largest industrial mobilisation in Brisbane in a decade. A weekend of protest is being planned for July 30 and 31.

Labor Premier Peter Beattie pledged that his state government would introduce legislation to protect workers’ conditions, but conceded that the Howard government could move to override any state laws.

AMWU member Andrew Martin told Green Left Weekly that the feeder rallies held by the AMWU and ETU at Roma Street Forum were “very impressive and militant”.

“This is just the beginning. Howard doesn’t realise what he’s in for. We will fight till we win”, AMWU organiser Tracy Bradley told the rally. There were numerous calls for a national strike from the rank and file.

Susan Austin reports that at least 3000 people attended an indoor rally in Hobart’s City Hall on June 30.

Simon Cocker, secretary of Unions Tasmania, encouraged everyone to speak to their workmates and others, to complete petitions, and “work to influence the moderates and the decent conservatives to convince them that these proposals are wrong”. The mood of the rally was defiant and many people took away campaign material and pledged to organise their workplaces.

Tasmanian MUA secretary Mick Wickham told Green Left Weekly that 500 people rallied in Devonport on June 30. Members of the Australian Nursing Federation, the Health and Community Services Union, meatworkers and the MUA all walked off the job to protest.

According to Wickham, “This was a great turnout and considering a lot of people aren’t even aware yet of how these laws will affect them, it means the campaign is off to a very good start, and will grow a lot in the next month”. He said that unions in the north of Tasmania are meeting weekly to organise the campaign and are planning actions every three weeks.

More than 2000 workers protested in Darwin on June 30, reports Kathy Newnam, including a large contingent from the Bechtel Gas plant at Wickham Point. The rally heard from Unions NT’s Nadine Williams, who welcomed the protest as the “beginning of a long campaign”.

NT treasurer Sid Stirling, who joined the rally along with all members of the territory Labor government, declared that his government would “stand with every unionist in the NT and see the fight through and see it won”. He promised that employees in the NT public sector would be spared from Howard’s industrial relations changes, because “as an employer, we won’t have it”.

Stirling told the crowd that the NT government’s legislative power is limited, as territory legislation can be overruled federally, but that the government is seeking constitutional advice on “whatever laws are necessary to protect workers”.

The rally also heard about 30 contract workers at the alumina refinery on Gove peninsula who held a 24-hour stoppage after Alcan attempted to prevent them from joining the Gove rally.

James Caulfield reports that more than 500 unionists descended on the Hyatt Hotel in Canberra on June 26 for a rally outside the federal Liberal Party council meeting.

From Green Left Weekly issue #632

Read more...

Construction workers stop work

Lisbeth Latham

On January 18, construction workers on a number of Perth building sites walked off the job over fears that a heavy haze that has been affecting Perth was hazardous to outdoor workers.

The stoppages caused outrage from construction companies and the West Australian. The Master Builders Association accused the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of seeking excuses to flex its industrial muscle. The CFMEU's success in winning improved conditions for workers building the southern rail line was a particular focus of the anger.

According to the Department of Environment, the haze, caused by the bushfires that began on January 16 and burnt out more than 25,000 hectares in the hills east of Perth, had released the highest ever recorded levels of smoke particles in the air. The department's four monitoring stations reported air particle levels that exceeded the allowable level of 50 micrograms per cubic metre during the week. While there is no monitoring in the Perth central business district, the department estimated that on January 19 and 20 the level was 100 micrograms per cubic metre.

From Green Left Weekly #613\.

Read more...

Don't add insult to injury!

Lisbeth Latham

On May 13, chanting, "What do we want? — Workers' comp!", more than 2500 workers marched on the Western Australian parliament. The rally was organised by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and the Electrical Trade Union (ETU) in response to new workers' compensation legislation introduced into parliament on May 5.

CFMEU state secretary Kevin Reynolds told the rally the amendments do not go far enough and will leave "WA having the worst workers comp system in Australia".


The new legislation will restrict injured workers' access to common law, as secondary impairments, including psychological ones, will no longer count for the threshold that allows such legal action. The rally demanded: no maximum in payments; reintroduction of journey cover; and no threshold for access to common law damages.

MUA branch secretary Chris Cain told the rally that the legislation "was nothing more than Liberal legislation".

Reynolds threatened ongoing action unless the government "becomes a more sympathetic government to the working class". He welcomed the support for the rally from the MUA, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union (CEPU) and rank-and-file members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, but attacked union leaders, including UnionsWA secretary Stephanie Mayman, who were not supporting the rally or the campaign for a better workers' compensation system.

Rally speakers included the partners of killed construction workers, ETU organiser Peter Carter, workers' compensation lawyer and activist Paul O'Halloran, CFMEU assistant secretary Joe McDonald and Greens MLC Jim Scott, who promised that the Greens would try to amend the legislation in the interests of working people.

State industrial relations minister John Kobelke defended the legislation, telling the May 14 West Australian that it would "provide $130 million in extra benefits to injured workers". Socialist Alliance senate candidate and MUA activist Ian Jamieson told Green Left Weekly that the figure only looked at statutory benefits and was "a pittance" in comparion to the savings of insurance companies from tightening common law benefits.

Mayman told the West Australian, "attempts to overturn the reforms could leave us with the dreadful system we've got now and no-one wants that".

Jamison argued that this misses the point, because a real fight by the unions could force a backdown. At the moment, he said, the ALP was mostly held back by its "commitments to protecting insurance company profits, which already stand at $270 million a year".

From Green Left Weekly #582

Read more...

WA public servants strike

Lisbeth Latham

PERTH — On November 27, public servants escalated their campaign for a new certified agreement (CA) with a 24-hour stoppage.

The government attempted to put off the strike by making a late offer on November 25. Community and Public Sector Union/Civil Service Association (CPSU/CSA) branch secretary Toni Walkington told Green Left Weekly that the offer was a "last-minute stunt" which did "not resolve the issues of workload, job security and incentives for people to work in regional areas. Those issues ultimately affect community services and the quality of services to the public."

Premier Geoff Gallop's Labor government has dismissed the strike as a dismal failure, claiming that only 700 workers participated. The CPSU/CSA claims that 7000 workers participated in the strike action with services stopped or reduced in 20 sections of the public service.

In the centre of Perth, five pickets were held with the largest being outside the state parliament. The union had requested that MPs not cross the line. However, following a directive from Gallop, most Labor MPs either crossed the picket line or entered parliament before 8.30 am when the picket started.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union state secretary Kevin Reynolds told the November 28 West Australian that the CFMEU would not support the re-election of any ALP MP who crossed the picket line. He called on other unions to do the same.

The government's arrogance and intransigence can only strengthen the resolve of public servants. When the city picket lines converged on the government's ministerial offices at Governor Stirling Tower, Walkington told the gathered unionists that while in opposition, "Gallop had said he valued the work of the public service... Well, Geoff, you haven't done that, you have offered us the crumbs after you have made an agreement with the police."

The government is rapidly developing an image of intransigence towards workers' conditions in order to protect its budget surplus and subsidise business development in the state.

With more and more public sector workers enterprise agreements and CAs expiring, the government faces growing industrial unrest. As a result, the employing class is getting worried about the future of the government. The November 22 Financial Review outlined its concerns over what it sees as the bogging down of the government agenda and growing community opposition with an "almost daily queue of protests outside Parliament House".

From Green Left Weekly #564

Read more...

Workers to strike over workplace deaths

Lisbeth Latham

PERTH — Four-thousand members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) are expected to strike on September 8, demanding safer working conditions in the construction industry, following citywide stop work meetings on September 4 and 5.

The strike is part of an escalating campaign of industrial action that began when 1000 construction workers walked of the job on August 29 and occupied the foyer of the state Labor government's ministerial offices. Four days later, 350 workers on seven Perth building sites staged a 24-hour strike in protest at unsafe working conditions.

The demonstrations have been called in response three incidents. The first was the decision by the Builders Registration Board to drop charges of negligence against a builder on whose site a worker was killed in September 2002 in an accident.

CFMEU construction division assistant state secretary Joe McDonald, speaking at a Socialist Alliance-organised forum on August 30, said that WA employment protection minister John Kobelke had promised the union that the government would strip the builder of his ticket.

Instead, the builder had been allowed to continue operating. This is despite the CFMEU having to conduct 16 separate stoppages over unsafe work practices on the builder's site in the last 12 months.

The second incident was the decision by Transfield Engineering to appeal a conviction for the workplace death of construction worker Joseph Guagliardo in 2000. This appeal is holding up the compensation claim for Guagliardo's widow.

The final incident was the death on August 28 of a worker on a Robe River construction site, bringing to 23 the number of workers killed on construction sites in the last 14 months in WA.

From Green Left Weekly #553.

Read more...

Howard's attacks on construction workers must be defeated

Lisbeth Latham

It is expected that during the current session of federal parliament, a range of new anti-union legislation will be introduced by Prime Minister John Howard's Coalition government, including legislation aimed at “reforming” the construction industry. This legislation will be based on the recommendations from the royal commission into the building industry.


The majority of the 212 recommendations in commissioner Terry Cole's report are aimed at protecting the bosses' profits by limiting the ability of workers and their unions to organise and by increasing the ability of the government to take punitive action against militant unions. The recommendations include:

• Establishment of an Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) with powers to investigate and prosecute breaches of law. It would have powers similar to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and have the power to enforce the Trade Practices Act against unions that block the ability of companies to operate. The ABCC will offer free legal advice to those who want it. It would also supersede the Office of the Employment Advocate, which would then focus on other industries.
  
• Drafting a Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act, which would override the Workplace Relations Act (WRA) if the two clash.
  
• Increasing fines for violating the WRA, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act or the Trades Practices Act to $20,000 for individuals and $100,000 for unions.
  
• Outlawing industry-wide pattern bargaining. In order for enterprise agreements to be registered with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), they would have to be proven to be not part of a pattern bargaining campaign. Unions that conduct pattern bargaining campaigns could face deregistration.
  
• Making unions and individual workers liable for the losses they “cause”.
  
• Disqualifying officials who “engage in unlawful conduct” from holding office.
  
• Giving the ABCC the power to cancel a union official's right of entry to building sites where it is “abused” and making all such visits subject to the ABCC's supervision.
  
• Mandating secret ballots before any industrial action is undertaken.
  
• Limiting unions to two weeks of protected industrial action followed by a three-week “cooling off” period. If industrial action is voluntarily ended prior to the two weeks then the three-week cooling off period must be completed before further action is taken.
  
• Stripping from the National Building and Construction Industry Award (NBCIA) and state building industry awards all allowances except four — a general allowance payable to all workers, a living away from home allowance, a meal allowance and a travelling allowance.
  
• Stripping from the NBCIA any limitations on the time that work can begin, days that can be worked or clauses specifying when rostered days off will be taken.
  
• Limiting the awarding of federal government building contracts to contractors and sub-contractors who adhere to the government's National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry.
  

If implemented, these recommendations would drastically reduce the capacity of construction unions to win and maintain decent conditions of employment for workers in the industry. Banning pattern bargaining would mean that conditions of work would be dependent on the strength of the union on individual building sites and create large variations in employment practices between sites.

The Master Builders Association's support for almost all the recommendations demonstrates that they are biased in favour of the employers. The MBA only has a few small quibbles with the recommendations. For instance, the MBA argues that the ABCC should be empowered to initiate and conduct civil litigation against unions on behalf of builders rather than simply give advice on legal action. It also opposes the recommendation that the AIRC set a maximum of overtime hours to be worked per week.

Senate
The Howard government is hoping to get legislation incorporating these recommendations approved by the Senate, using the argument that greater powers are needed to “re-establish the rule of law” on building sites because of the royal commission's finding of 392 cases of alleged unlawful conduct. In nearly all of the cited cases, however, union members and officials had attempted to enter building sites to hold stop-work meetings, seek strike pay or seek to ensure that all workers on a site were union members.

It is in the interest of all workers to stop the Howard government's attack on the construction unions. If the government is successful with its attack on construction workers, then it will be in a far stronger and more confident position to attack other workers — it could move to have the construction industry laws extended to all other industries to “ensure uniformity and consistency” in the industrial relations system.

Importantly, Howard and workplace relations minister Tony Abbott know that if the construction industry legislation passes in the Senate, it will be harder for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) to provide solidarity with other unions under attack, such as it did during the 1998 waterfront dispute.

During the campaigns against the WRA in 1996 and the “second wave” of Howard government industrial relations legislation in 1999, the ACTU focused on lobbying the opposition parties in the Senate, particularly the Australian Democrats, to block the legislation. This approach failed when the Democrats did a deal with the Howard government in 1996 to pass the WRA.

Although the government does not have a majority in the Senate, it would be dangerous to rely on this to block the anti-union legislation. Since 1996, Howard has succeeded in getting most of his government's major pieces of legislation through the Senate. On the great majority of legislative bills, the independents, the Democrats and the ALP have given the government the numbers to pass particular pieces of legislation.

Democrats
When Green Left Weekly approached the Democrats and independent senator Meg Lees for comments about the government's intention to introduce legislation restricting the industrial rights of construction workers, they declined to comment until the exact details of the legislation have been provided by the government.

Although the government hasn't produced the exact details of its legislation, it has made it crystal clear that it intends to drastically reduce the ability of construction workers and their unions to fight for improvements in their working conditions and wages.

In a number of public statements the Democrats have indicated that they support some of the recommendations of the Cole commission. In an address to the MBA in Queensland on May 22, Democrats' leader Andrew Bartlett argued that his party sees the “restoration of law in the construction industry as a key outcome”. To achieve this, Bartlett argued for the introduction of private-sector whistleblower legislation to enable individuals to make anonymous allegations of misconduct, and ensure that unions are made responsible for the “unlawful” conduct of officials and members.

There are a number of problems with the Bartlett's approach. Firstly, whistleblower legislation would reproduce the procedures of the royal commission where allegations were made against unions without any opportunity for unions to test the truth of the allegations.

Secondly, the Democrats' approach is to ensure that no violations of the WRA occur, regardless of why they occur. Within the construction industry, like all industries, employers are constantly devising ways to increase profits — by driving workers to work faster or for excessive hours, by failing to pay appropriate wage levels or entitlements, and by taking shortcuts around occupational health and safety.

In order to fight these attacks on working conditions it is necessary for unions to identify them by gaining entry to work sites and accessing relevant documentation, involving members in stop-work meetings to determine a course of action and then by taking industrial action.

The WRA deems almost all industrial action to be illegal, so it is almost impossible for workers to defend their rights without taking “illegal” industrial action.

The Cole commission found that 230 of the 392 findings of “unlawful” conduct committed by the construction unions had been committed by the Western Australian branch of the CFMEU. But the overwhelming majority of these were for union officials insisting on their right to enter building sites and visit their members despite WA industrial legislation banning the right of entry. This was an undemocratic law which had to be broken if the union was to organise its members.

Bartlett's speech to the MBA indicates that his call for harmony on building sites is really a call for unions to give up industrial action. Although he did make some small demands on employers regarding health and safety and the payment of entitlements, they are demands which cannot be achieved without strong unions that are prepared to take action to ensure employers' compliance.

Bartlett's comments to the MBA indicate that it would be a serious mistake for unions to rely simply on lobbying the Democrats to block the government's anti-union legislation in the Senate.

It is much more likely that the Senate would block the legislation, or the government not introduce it, if the building industry bosses know they will face a massive national campaign of strikes, workplace bans and public rallies organised by the entire union movement if the government attempts to put the Cole commission's recommendations into legislation.

In 1995, a united campaign of sustained industrial action and street protests by the union movement in Western Australia stopped the state Coalition government's proposed “second wave” of attacks on union rights. This campaign included rolling strikes and 24-hour stoppages.
However, in 1997, when the WA Coalition government again tried to put the measures through parliament, the trade unions failed to continue the campaign and the government was able to get the legislation passed.

While the construction unions in Western Australia and Victoria have mobilised against the Cole commission, it is vital that the entire union movement commit itself to take sustained action to defeat the Howard government planned attack on the construction unions.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #550

Read more...

WA building workers win 36-hour week

Lisbeth Latham
On November 22, members of the Western Australian branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union's construction and general divisions began the process of implementing of a new enterprise agreement.

The agreement includes a 36-hour week for construction workers, based on the introduction of increased rostered days off over the next three years (five days in first year, nine in the second and 13 in the final year).

Other gains include: a 12% pay rise over the next three years; travel allowances increased to $22.50 a day; weekly superannuation payments of $95 in the first year, $100 in the second and $110 in the final year; redundancy payments increased to $70 a week; a 150% increase in trauma insurance payouts for death or permanent incapacitation, from $100,000 to $350,000 (in addition to any workers compensation payments); and a 10% increase in site allowances.

The agreement has been signed by WA's eight largest construction contractors and 40 subcontractors, with 100 subcontractors likely to sign on in the next two weeks, resulting in 6000 CFMEU members (90% of the union's WA membership) in Perth being covered by the agreement.

The CFMEU is committed to winning the extension of the agreement to all members, CFMEU construction division secretary Kevin Reynolds told Green Left Weekly. “We will seek protected action and take all forms of bans, limitations and strike action against the companies that haven't signed”, he said. The CFMEU has not signed an agreement with notorious anti-union millionaire Len Buckridge. However, the union will sign up the subcontractors used by Buckridge.

Reynolds told Green Left Weekly that the ability of the CFMEU to make significant gains for its members without having to take industrial action reflected the union's strength in Western Australia and Victoria. “The builders saw what can happen when they take us on, in Victoria three years ago. The builders there made a decision that they were not going to go through hell again. The major contractors in Western Australia are the same contractors who operate in Victoria and they knew what they were in for. Therefore, they made a commercial decision and decided it would be cheaper to settle with the union without a brawl, than to have a punch-up.”

Reynolds added that “on this occasion it suited us to negotiate ... as it demonstrates to everyone that the unions and the employers, left to negotiate things, can sort out their problems ... without any interference from governments or royal commissions”.

In recent weeks in Perth, there have been two deaths on building sites. Reynolds blamed the deaths on intransigent employers who refuse to work with unions. Unionised companies are more likely to enforce safety regulations.

However, Reynolds pointed out that when the same companies operate in places where the CFMEU is not strong, their health and safety records are significantly worse.

“We hope for the day that contractors who kill workers face manslaughter charges”, Reynolds told Green Left Weekly.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly http://www.greenleft.org.au/2002/519/27053

Read more...

Building workers protest royal commission

Lisbeth Latham

PERTH — On October 2, some 1000 members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union's construction division protested against the return to Perth of the royal commission into the construction industry.

CFMEU state secretary Kevin Reynolds, who appeared at a commission hearing for the first time, informed the rally that "of the 640 witnesses called only 30 have been from the side of the union".

Reynolds reminded the CFMEU members that commissioner Terence Cole "is not interested in the truth, but in destroying your union. Kevin Reynolds may come and go but the union will always remain a strong militant union willing to bring them to heel."

Transport Workers Union state secretary Jim McGiveron expressed his union's support for the CFMEU and all unions under attack. He pointed out the hypocrisy and anti-union bias of the commission's hearings with "97% of the witnesses called in NSW being anti-union [and] 71% of all witnesses were employers, it amounts to an attack on unions".

CFMEU mining and energy division state secretary Gary Woods, former West Australian Labor premier Brian Bourke and former federal industrial relations minister Senator Peter Cook also addressed the rally.

From Green Left Weekly #512

Read more...