Year 2005 No. 130, November 16, 2005 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBBOOKS | SUBSCRIBE |
---|
Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :
Biggest Workers' Protest in Australian History
Brendan Barber Delivers Letter in Defence of Australian Workers' Employment Rights
Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site:
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail:
office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
4 issues - £2.95, 6 months - £18.95 for 26 issues, Yearly -
£33.95 (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text
e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10
More than 600,000 workers rallied and marched in co-ordinated protests in cities around Australia on November 15 in the biggest trade union organised demonstration ever on the continent. They were protesting against the Howard government's draconian anti-union and anti-worker industrial relations laws which are now before the federal parliament.
The turnout was nearly twice that of the turnout at the previous round of mass protests against the laws on June 30/July 1.
The rallies in Geelong (35,000),Townsville (5,000) and Armidale (800) were among several which adopted resolutions calling upon the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to organise nation-wide industrial action against the new laws, called upon the Labour opposition to commit to repealing all Howard's anti-union laws and vowed to strike if any worker is penalised under these laws.
The biggest protest took place in Melbourne, where police say more than 100,000 gathered for the main rally. In Sydney, about 30,000 gathered. Other major rallies were staged in Adelaide, where 10,000 gathered, and in Perth where 20,000 were estimated.
Sydney's M4 Motorway was blocked by protestors, after more than 3,000 transport workers marched onto the road to sever traffic flow travelling in both directions with 15 freight lorries.
New South Wales Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca described the Howard government's plans as "fascistic". He said that the changes would create a working underclass and could lead to riots similar to those seen recently in Paris.
South Australian Industrial Relations Minister Michael Wright said the message the federal government was sending to millions of Australians was that it did not care enough to ensure they had a basic level of dignity or a decent standard of living.
On November 15, TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber hand-delivered a letter to the Australian High Commission in support of the Australian TUC's (ACTU) day of action against the anti-worker, anti-trade union laws. It is reported that unions across the world made similar representations to Australian representatives in their own countries.
The full text of the letter from Brendan Barber to the Australian High Commissioner, Richard Alston, follows:
I am writing to register with you the TUC's serious concerns about your Government's plans to introduce repressive new industrial relations legislation, which will dramatically reduce the rights of workers to union representation, collective bargaining, minimum employment standards and protection from unfair dismissal.
Our concern is, in part, out of solidarity with the workers of Australia (many of whom were born or have roots in the UK) and our colleagues in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We believe that the changes proposed will fundamentally damage Australia's reputation as a country where workers get "a fair go". But we are also concerned that the laws being proposed would breach the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and thereby undermine the rights of workers everywhere, including in Britain.
We are particularly concerned that m inimum wages will in future be determined by a government appointed Commission which will set them on the basis of "competitiveness", without regard for fairness and decent living standards. This does not, as some have suggested (including your Prime Minister, we believe), follow the example set by the UK's Low Pay Commission in raising real wages for the poorest paid but will in fact do precisely the opposite and reduce the earnings of those least able to cope.
We understand also that t he independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission will have virtually all its powers removed, except for its powers to stop unions taking industrial action. The system of Awards setting out core terms and conditions of employment for different occupations and sectors will be replaced by a system where the employer will have virtually total power to decide terms and conditions.
We believe that the new law would:
remove protection from unfair dismissal for all workers in workplaces
employing less than 100 workers;
push workers onto individual employment contracts;
restrict trade union activities, including the right to talk with
workers in their workplace;
impose extremely narrow limits on the matters which can be the subject
of collective bargaining;
remove the right to public holidays for many workers, and weaken
provisions for annual leave;
allow employers to decide unilaterally on annual leave bonuses, meal and
rest breaks, overtime rates and other provisions for many workers, especially
younger workers and those starting a new job;
reduce protection for employees who refuse unsafe or unhealthy work;
and
allow the government sweeping powers to stop industrial action if it
decides the action is detrimental to the economy .
We believe that these changes are unpopular with the people of
Australia, are being opposed by the Australian trade union movement, and are
contrary to the fundamental ILO principles of freedom of association and free
collective bargaining, and we would ask you to urge your government to
reconsider.
Yours sincerely
Brendan Barber
TUC General Secretary
Unison News (15/11/05)
The Australian government is planning to introduce repressive new industrial relations legislation that will dramatically reduce the rights of workers to union representation, collective bargaining, minimum employment standards and protection from unfair dismissal. Unison general secretary, Dave Prentis, has written a letter to the Australian high commissioner to register the unions serious concerns.
"We believe that the changes proposed will fundamentally damage Australias reputation as a country where workers get a fair go. But we are also concerned that the laws being proposed would breach the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and thereby undermine the rights of workers everywhere, including in Britain."
He noted that an area of particular concern was that minimum wages will in future be determined by a government appointed commission which will set them on the basis of "competitiveness", without regard for fairness and decent living standards. "This does not, as some have suggested, including your prime minister, we believe, follow the example set by the UKs Low Pay Commission in raising real wages for the poorest paid but will in fact do precisely the opposite and reduce the earnings of those least able to cope." He also criticised the move to remove all powers from the independent Australian Industrial Relations Commission except for its powers to stop unions taking industrial action. "The system of awards setting out core terms and conditions of employment for different occupations and sectors will be replaced by a system where the employer will have virtually total power to decide terms and conditions."
The letter goes on to outline all that is detrimental to workers
rights in the new law, which will:
remove protection from unfair dismissal for all workers in workplaces employing
less than 100 workers;
pushing workers onto individual employment contracts;
restrict trade union activities, including the right to talk with workers in
their workplace;
impose extremely narrow limits on the matters which can be the subject of
collective bargaining;
remove the right to public holidays for many workers, and weaken provisions for
annual leave;
allow employers to decide unilaterally on annual leave bonuses, meal and rest
breaks, overtime rates and other provisions for many workers, especially
younger workers and those starting a new job;
reduce protection for employees who refuse unsafe or unhealthy work; and
allow the government sweeping powers to stop industrial action if it decides
the action is detrimental to the economy.
"We believe that these changes are unpopular with the people of Australia,
are being opposed by the Australian trade union movement, and are contrary to
the fundamental ILO principles of freedom of association and free collective
bargaining, and we would ask you to urge your government to reconsider,"
Prentis concluded.
By Graham Matthews, Green Left Weekly, November 16, 2005
The new IR ("industrial relations") laws are going to "bring the biggest changes to industrial relations in 100 years", according to Adam Bandt, a partner at Slater & Gordon Lawyers, a Melbourne-based firm specialising in defending unions and unionists. He spoke to Green Left Weekly on November 10, the same day the Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Bill was passed by the House of Representatives.
Bandt said that WorkChoices will "very radically alter the balance of power at the workplace in favour of employers, and it will do that in large numbers of subtle and not-so-subtle ways". But, he added, "the [fightback] campaign is developing quite well, and the numbers out on the streets so far give a very good indication of what people think about the laws."
The WorkChoices bill runs to more than 600 pages, large parts of which are devoted to the restrictions on unions' ability to take protected legal industrial action.
Section 107 sets out the various circumstances in which the Industrial Relations Commission (IRC) may suspend or terminate a bargaining period between a union and an employer at a particular site.
The IRC can suspend or terminate a bargaining period, making any continued industrial action illegal, if: it deems that "a party" (i.e. a union) "is not genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the other negotiating parties" (i.e. the boss); industrial action is threatening "to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or a significant part of it"; "[a union] is engaged in pattern bargaining in relation to the proposed collective agreement"; and the IRC believes that "suspending the bargaining period would be beneficial to the negotiating parties because it would assist in resolving matters at issue". This last circumstance comes under the heading, "cooling-off".
Bandt said that under the new laws the legal right to strike is not only severely curtailed, "it might be difficult to exercise". "Remember that the era of protected industrial action is only 12 years' old. It was introduced by the [Labour] Keating government in 1993; prior to that, any effective industrial action had always been unlawful under common law."
New powers
According to Bandt, the federal workplace relations minister will have considerably greater power to "step in and actually terminate bargaining periods. It gives the lie to the rhetoric about choice' leaving employers and employees the room to negotiate their own agreements."
"The act gives the minister emergency services powers, almost [like under] martial law, where the minister can tell workers not only what their wages and conditions are going to be, but also how they are going to behave." These provisions, he said, are "buried" in the legislation and they "run completely counter to the notion of choice". "It's about the federal government exercising unprecedented levels of control over what workers and unions do."
The new Building Industry Commission, formed by the Building Industry Improvement Act, has the power to subpoena witnesses and insist on answers to any of its questions. It has the power to jail witnesses who fail to answer for contempt.
Bandt pointed to the alarming "trend" in Australia, and internationally, "to suspend the rule of law in more places and more often for more categories of people". There's a common thread, he said, which is to assume that people are guilty until proven innocent a suspension of our democratic rights and conventions. "Workers in the building industry are being considered guilty until proven innocent, and they are losing their right to silence."
The government PR accompanying the WorkChoices package emphasised the extent to which workers' rights were to be "protected by law". Bandt believes that it would be more accurate to include a few more words: "Protected by laws until you have to renegotiate your agreement or unless the employer decides otherwise".
"These laws will really bite when you have to renegotiate an agreement, change jobs, or if you enter the workforce at a particular time", Bandt explained. "Under the new law, employers will be lawfully able to say Well, you can only work here if you sign an AWA [individual contract] based on these wages and conditions, and if you trade off these other conditions'. This is going to be lawful."
Labour state governments in NSW and Queensland have promised to launch a High Court challenge against the WorkChoices legislation. Bandt believes that this will only succeed in defeating the laws if its combined with an action campaign.
"[WorkChoices] will have to be defeated on the streets, he said, adding that the campaign "will need to last a number of years". "After the bill becomes law, we have to focus on making sure the laws don't become normalised, and that the repeal campaign continues. We need to build a strong campaign to make the laws unworkable", Bandt concluded.