Can unions Stop the spread of casual work?

Lisbeth Latham

During the past two decades, the number of Australian workers employed as casual workers has grown dramatically. More than 2 million workers — or a quarter of the workforce — are now employed on a casual basis.


“Casual employees offered cheaper labour costs, they offered greater ease of dismissal, they offered the opportunity to match labour time to fluctuations in demand, they offered greater administrative convenience, and they offered a greater opportunity for enhanced control of employees”, Dr Ian Campbell, a lecturer at RMIT, explained in a submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).

While casual employment may be good for company profits, it increases work stress and uncertainty for workers, and exacerbates income inequality. According to the Australian Council of Trade Unions' (ACTU) Future Strategies report, during the 1990s almost three out of every four jobs created were casual or part-time. Eighty per cent of the jobs created paid less than $26,000 a year. This lowering of income partly reflects that most casual workers are part-time, but a hefty 39% of casuals are full-time workers.

Casual employment is not, as many believe, used mainly as a temporary stop gap. Tony Abbott, the federal workplace relations minister, told parliament on June 23 that the majority of casual workers have worked for the same employer for the last 12 months and have regular patterns of work.

The federal government, and employer organisations such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group, justify the increasing casualisation of work with the claim that a “flexible” work force will ensure business competitiveness.

This just means that denying workers’ holiday and sick leave means bigger profits. In the NSW TAFE system, for example, there are more than 15,000 casual part-time staff. According to July 4 episode of the ABC’s Stateline program, casual “part-time” teachers working full-time hours earn approximately 30% less than their full-time colleagues employed on permanent basis.

The growth in casual employment also undermines conditions for permanent workers, who are driven to become more “flexible” in order to compete. In the stevedoring industry, for example, the current P&O agreement creates a new form of work — “permanent irregular”. While they have a guaranteed annual income, these workers will not have a roster. Instead, like current casuals, their shifts will be irregular and impossible to plan around.

A large number of different employment conditions makes it harder to develop solidarity in a workplace. It’s easier for bosses to play the different groups against each other.

There have been a variety of different responses to casualisation from its opponents. Unions have tried to improve conditions for casual workers, limit the spread of casual conditions and ensure casual workers can move into permanent positions relatively quickly.

To achieve this, unions have pursued clauses in enterprise agreements and rulings in the AIRC that limit the proportion of a work force that is casual, limit the amount of time a worker can be employed casually and make casual workers more costly to employers.

Casual employment conditionsIn 1999, the metal division of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union applied for a variation in the metal and engineering award, in order to improve the working conditions of casuals. The AMWU wanted to increase the casual loading to 30% and establish a minimum daily hiring period (“engagement”) for workers.

Casual loading compensates casual workers for their exclusion from award benefits such as sick and annual leave. The union estimated that anything less than 30% meant casuals would be worse off than permanent workers.

One of the worst pitfalls of casual work is the lack of certain income. The daily minimum engagement was designed to limit this, and ensure that workers knew they would be paid enough to offset the costs of going to work, such as transport and childcare. The AMWU applied for a minimum engagement of six hours, and a maximum of one engagement per day.

While the AIRC accepted the AMWU’s arguments, it granted an increase in loading to 25%, and a minimum engagement of four hours, with workers able to be engaged more than once a day.
Despite the short-fall, this case provides a basis to argue for such changes for all casuals. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) is attempting to use the decision as a precedent to win a 25% casual loading as part of its national pattern bargaining campaign for new industrial agreements. The Australian Workers Union (AWU) has also won an increase in the casual loading to 25% for horticultural workers and shearers.

An alternative approach is being followed by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. In a claim going before the industrial relations commission in September, the federation is asking for casual part-time TAFE teachers to receive pro-rata conditions such as holiday and personal leave. The claim is for staff who work eight or more hours a week, and will affect 5200 teachers in New South Wales.

Limiting casual employment
In the 1999 metal and engineering case, the AMWU unsuccessfully attempted to ensure casual employees were only employed to meet short-term work needs, in emergency circumstances, or to perform work unable to be practicably rostered to permanent employees. The union wanted to ensure that permanent employment remained the standard form of employment.

The NSW Public Service Association (PSA) won an alternative limit on casual employment in the libraries of the Illawarra TAFE Institute during 2001. The institute's management had attempted to reduce permanent employment by replacing retiring permanent workers with contract casual labour. Through a persistent industrial campaign, the PSA's members were able to win a 5% cap on the proportion of workers that could be employed as casuals.

Converting casual to permanent employmentDuring 1999 and 2000, three landmark award decisions gave casuals the right to transfer to permanent employment after a period of time. These were the graphic design award, the South Australian clerks award and the metal and engineering awards.

On the graphic design award, the AIRC ruled in 1999 that after 12 weeks, casual workers would automatically switch to permanent employment. This could be extended, if the worker, union and employer agreed, by a further 12 weeks — if the work was ceasing during that time.

In a 1999 case before the South Australian industrial relations commission, workers covered by the clerks’ award were given the right to “voluntary conversion” after 12 months, although this could be extended to two years. Under voluntary conversion, workers must apply to be made permanent, and can be refused if “reasonable grounds” are given.

In the 1999 metal and engineering award case, the AMWU applied for automatic conversion to permanent employment after four weeks, extendable to eight weeks. However the AIRC ruled that in order maintain “employer flexibility”, voluntary conversion would apply after six months, extendable to a year.

The AMWU wanted a shorter pre-conversion period in order to discourage bosses from laying off workers instead of making them permanent, then hiring new casuals. The shorter the period, the more often bosses would have to hire and train workers in order to keep rotating casuals.

Since these decisions, conversion rights have been inserted in a number of awards. In May 2003, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) won voluntary conversion after 12 months for workers in the hospitality industry. Casual horticultural workers in New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria now have voluntary conversion after 12 months. The NTEU is also seeking conversion rights after 12 months in its pattern agreement.

According to Professor Barbara Pocock from the Centre for Labour Research at Adelaide University, voluntary conversion provisions have had limited success. “This is not surprising when you look at the workers who are in casual employment, and the precarious circumstances of their employment”, she told Green Left Weekly. “There are two reasons for this low uptake. Firstly, any casual worker applying to their employer to [be made] permanent is sticking [his or her] head out, so it would take a very brave person to do so. Secondly, most casual workers are on low wages, so the move towards permanent employment means a 20% cut in take home income that they cannot afford”. Pocock's research indicates that many casual workers underestimate the risks of casual work, which has no sick leave.

Pocock argues that casual work should be “strictly limited to truly temporary work, and any work that extends this should automatically convert to permanent employment. This would allow workers to factor into their budgets the move to permanency and would eliminate an abuse of the industrial relations system”.

The AIRC might be unwilling to allow short-term, automatic conversion to permanent employment, but the Victorian AMWU has shown it is not impossible to win it. In the branch’s metal division Campaign 2003, the model agreement includes automatic conversion from casual to permanent employment after 12 weeks. Through militant industrial action, this has already been won at a number of work sites.

Originally published in Green Left Weekly #547

Read more...

Solomons: Troops should not go

Lisbeth Latham

In the lead-up to PM John Howard's announcement that Australia would send troops to the Solomon Islands, the mainstream media was filled with the lurid descriptions of violent criminal gangs terrorising the Solomons' population, and warned of the dangers of the tiny country becoming a terrorist breeding ground. Perhaps unable to see past this propaganda, Australia's parliamentary opposition parties have accepted the need for an intervention, restricting themselves to debating the best framework for implementing it.


It is unfortunate that there is no parliamentary party outright opposing the intervention, as Howard is likely to use it as an opportunity to initiate a more active role through which to assert Australian big business dominance within the South Pacific.

The ALP quickly indicated it was keen to get “bipartisan” support for the intervention. In a statement issued on June 30, Labor's foreign affairs spokesperson, Kevin Rudd, explained that the party's support for the operation would be based on it meeting three criteria: “An invitation from the Solomon Islands government; consensus among the Pacific Islands Forum countries; and an appropriate force composition for this policing action, together with well-defined exit conditions.”

The latter condition is unlikely to be an issue, the second was met on June 30, and the first is likely to be met on July 8. Instead of challenging the intervention, Labor has attempted to “score points” by disagreeing with foreign minister Alexander Downer's argument that the intervention shows that national “sovereignty is not absolute”.

On June 27, Rudd stated that with the “intervention into the Solomon Islands, the question of sovereignty does not arise because the intervention is to be based specifically on the request of a sovereign government in a matter of domestic security”. Rudd's concern is that, if Canberra openly disregards national sovereignty, the same arguments may be used by “great powers within our region against Australia's sovereign interests in the future”.

The Greens have expressed concern at the Australian government intervening in the Solomon Islands without the support of the United Nations. Greens senator Bob Brown was quoted in the June 27 Sydney Morning Herald saying: “Australia risks being seen as a mini-imperial outfit in the South Pacific. That is not something that Australia wants to do.”

However, UN endorsement of Canberra's military intervention would not alter the Solomons' neo-colonial relationship with Australia.

The Solomon Islands, like the rest of the South Pacific island nations, are heavily dependent on Australian aid and trade. In 2001, according to the CIA's World Fact File, the Solomons' government budget revenue as A$58 million — Canberra's aid allocation to the country for 2003-04 was $37.1 million.

According to an AID/Watch June 13 briefing paper, Solomon Islands: Should Australia send a peace keeping force, this aid is contingent on Solomon Islands' commitment and progress in restoring law and order and improving economic management. This is reflected in the growth in governance building to 22% of Australia's aid program, including $17 million over the past four years to Kerry Packer's GRM International to increase the capacity of the Royal Solomon Islands Police.

In sending troops, Canberra intends to make the islands safe for Australian big business investment. A UN-endorsed intervention, which would still be led by Australian troops, would have the same aim, and would reinforce the same dependent relations.

The government and a number of media commentators are tripping over themselves to distance the deployment from the label of colonialism. But that is exactly what it is — and why it must be completely opposed.

Action in Solidarity with Asia and the Pacific's Iggy Kim told Green Left Weekly: “Howard and Downer know that there is a strong opposition, both within Australian and the Asia-Pacific region, to Canberra's economic domination and exploitation of its neighbours. So they're trying to sell the intervention as a `rescue' of the Solomon Islands. We need to be clear — Australia already dominates and exploits the Solomon Islands government. What is changing is that Australia is moving from indirect domination towards direct colonial domination, through controlling the arms and the economy.”

This may not stop at the Solomons. In an address to the Sydney Institute on July 1, Howard commented that the Solomon Islands was “not the only country in the region” that is “at risk of failing”.

Further Australian interference in the islands is unlikely to help — the dependent economic relationship is part of the problem. AID/Watch's Tim O'Connor explained to Green Left Weekly that the communal tension is a direct result of the Australian aid program that is “developing a dual economy between the elites who have access to aid money and the benefits that flow from it such as education and health, and those that do not”.

This is exacerbated when the key objective of Australian aid is to increase the exports of Australian companies. This aid, O'Connor argues, “acts as a boomerang, with an estimated 70% of Australia's aid being tied to specific Australian companies”. This makes the practice of giving aid “simply an elaborate form of corporate welfare. The Australian aid program to the Solomon Islands should be focused primarily on alleviating poverty. This would promote sustainable development and attack the problem of internal conflict directly by addressing the urgent needs of the people”.

From Green Left Weekly issue #545

Read more...

Have you got what it takes? Joining the Australian killing machine

By Lisbeth Latham

In 2002, 5836 people joined the Australian Defence Force (ADF) as regular members -about 700 more than joined in 2001. The vast majority of them were young people between the ages of 18 and 24.

While no survey has been taken of the young people who have joined the ADF in recent years, a glance at the pitch made in recruiting advertisements does not support the idea that there is any significant increase in support for the Australian military among young people.

During the last financial year, the ADF spent more than $33 million on recruiting ads in newspapers, on TV and at movie screenings.

The thrust of this advertising is not aimed at telling the truth. It does not try to convince young people to become part of the Australian military machine to kill people in other countries in order to protect Australian businesses' overseas investments. Nor does it aim to convince young people to become part of the ADF to fight "terrorism" or "rogue states": the current establishment justification for imperialist military intervention in the Third World.

Rather, ADF recruiting advertisements focus on how being part of the ADF enables young people to get fully paid training in some highly skilled, technical job or to help poor people in other countries rebuild the basic services. (Recent ADF ads highlight Australian military personnel's role in rebuilding East Timor's roads, schools and health services in the wake of the devastation caused by Indonesian occupation of that country.) The ADF's combat role is only alluded to through scenes of war games - never images of real combat situations.

Historically, the bulk of general enlistments, that is non-officers, of the world's armed forces, have been drawn from the working class, usually its poorest sections. General enlistment in the army and navy by young people from impoverished working-class families is motivated, much less by patriotism, than by the desire to obtain a regular, guaranteed income. It is for this reason that African and Hispanic Americans make up a considerable, and increasing, proportion of the soldiers and sailors in the US armed forces.

The ADF chiefs are well aware of this. That's why their recruiting ads emphasise the amount that recruits will get paid. According to the comparative employment value adjustable model (CEVAM), an 18-year-old ADF recruit who has completed basic training can expect to take home at least $690 per week.

CEVAM is a spreadsheet on the Stay Army web site that allows ADF personnel to work out what they would need to earn as a civilian to receive the same financial remuneration and benefits they receive in the ADF.

In the case of the hypothetical 18-year-old, to receive the same level of income (take-home pay and other benefits) in civilian employment that he or she would get in the ADF, they would have to earn $45,927 per annum, putting them in the top 3.5% of wage earners for 15-19 year-olds.

The desperate financial situation that the majority of university students face, whether they are working part-time or living on the poverty-level income provided through the Youth Allowance, makes joining the army reserves an attractive financial proposition. It is for this reason that army recruitment stalls are becoming an increasingly common sight on university campuses.

These stalls target students who are desperate to make ends meet with tax-free pay that doesn't affect Centrelink payments. The army reserves' advertisement of a commitment of "one weekend a month and two weeks a year" adds to the attraction of the army reserves. The time required is actually higher, including at least one night a week and the possibility of being called up to full active service.

In 2001-2, there were 1034 reservists in regular service out of the total reserve force of 21,001. This is likely to be much higher this year with the war on Iraq. On January 7, Britain announced it was calling-up 6000 of its 40,000 reservists.

The financial motivation for enlistment in the ADF increases the possibility of a growth of opposition to war within its ranks and those considering it as an employment option, as occurred in the US army during the Vietnam War.

The growth of anti-war sentiment within the US army, of course, reflected the growth of anti-war sentiment in the general population. But it was also encouraged by sections of the anti-war movement seeking to convince the ranks of the armed forces that the war was unjust and supporting the right of military personnel to publicly express their political opposition to the government's foreign policy.

From Green Left Weekly issue #522

Read more...

Cockburn to become US Navy base

Lisbeth Latham

FREMANTLE — On January 6, the USS Abraham Lincoln, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, returned to Fremantle just two weeks after its last visit. It had been scheduled to return to the US, but was ordered back to Fremantle to prepare for deployment to the Persian Gulf.

The Abraham Lincoln’s return to Perth signals both the imminence of a war on Iraq, but also the state and federal governments’ desire for Fremantle and Cockburn Sound to play an important logistical role in support of the US’s war drive.

On January 13 the destroyer USS Fletcher will arrive in WA to conduct a sea swap. Sea swap is the term used by the US Navy to describe the changing over of crews and resupplying of its ships. The Western Australian, federal and US governments agreed to the first swap on October 24, more are expected to take place, with US ships to be docked in Cockburn Sound south of Perth.

Ongoing sea swaps with the US seventh fleet will require the conversion of the Cockburn Sound into a US naval base, which would include the deepening of the channel in the Cockburn sound from 12 to 16 metres, to allow aircraft carriers to dock. Also included in the agreement is the opening up of the Lancelin, north of Perth, for the US Navy to conduct live fire practice of sea and air bombardments and marine amphibious assaults. Lancelin is already used by the Australian Defence Forces for live fire exercises.

State and federal governments’ public motivations for the proposal have been based around the possible economic benefits of gaining access to part of the US Navy’s US$100 billion budget and an expansion in tourist spending associated with an increased presence of US naval personnel.

The biggest carrot to accept the sea swaps has been the prospect of jobs growth in Western Australia’s ship industry through demands for the repair of US ships. The Fremantle Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG) has suggested that there is unlikely to be any significant increase in jobs due to US “Title Ten” laws. These state that repairs must be carried out in US ports or in foreign ports if the ship is based there, leaving only repairs essential to keeping ships operational available to be conducted in Cockburn Sound.

Irrespective of any possible local employment opportunities associated with a sea-swap, it should be opposed. The proposal is aimed at strengthening the US navy and its ability to enforce US foreign policy. The push to conduct sea swaps in Fremantle and other Australian ports, such as Darwin, reflects the continued focus of US operations in the Middle East and southwest Asia, which require increased deployments in the Indian Ocean; Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

Shifting operations to Cockburn Sound will dramatically increase the turn-around time for US naval battle groups that at present return to San Diego on the US west coast, or Hawaii.

According to an October 24 press release from Australian defence minister Robert Hill’s office, the swap “will enable the US Navy to transfer crews without the need on every occasion to return the ship to the United States, allowing a more efficient use of navy assets. The sea swap agreement demonstrates Australia’s support for a principal ally and friend”.

The establishment of a permanent US military installation has raised a number of environmental concerns for both Cockburn Sound and Lancelin. According to the FANG spokesperson Scott Ludlum “The US military is the single largest source of industrial pollution in the world. Many US bases in other countries and the US have been closed by public demand, leaving a legacy of radiological and chemical contamination which the US refuses to take responsibility for”.

From Green Left Weekly issue #521

Read more...

'No to war'

Lisbeth Latham

PERTH - On December 8, more than 1000 people rallied in Perth to oppose the impending war in Iraq. Organised by the NOWAR Alliance, the protest demanded: no war on Iraq; no Australian support for war; an end to sanctions on Iraq; and no attacks on civil liberties.

ALP parliamentarian Carmen Lawrence spoke at the protest. "Australian people are not willing to support a new American imperialism", she said. "People need to come out and oppose the war."

Other speakers included Theo Mackaay, from the Anglican Social Responsilities Commission, Russell Pickering, from the Socialist Alliance, Sheik Omran from a local Islamic college, Rosemary Miller from the Uniting Church Social Justice Commission, local Greens MLC Giz Watson and Democrats representative Helen Hodgson.

Pickering said: "World wide protests against the war on Iraq are developing solidarity with people of the Third

World, who are under attack from the military and corporations from countries like Australia and the US. Today we are taking a stand against the agenda of repression and exploitation that divides our world. The war on Iraq is bringing together a powerful movement for change -

a peoples' movement which says no to war, end the sanctions."

From Green Left Weekly #520.

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...