Sunday, October 30, 2005

God to decide minimum wage

The minimum wage will be set by "God's will", the head of the Howard Government's new Fair Pay Commission said yesterday.

Prof Ian Harper said his Christian faith would provide him with a moral compass in the task of setting wages.

"My wife and I -- and a very narrow circle of Christian brothers and sisters -- spent a lot of time praying about this."

read more

Peter Neilson: Garrison Church


The Garrison Church: sketch by Peter Neilson on the 150th anniversary of the eight hour day in Sydney

see also

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Howard's Fatal Laws

Drawing on ground breaking research from social epidemiologist Sir Michael Marmot, ACIRRT argues that there is a direct link between income inequality, sickness and lower life expectancy.

Marmot argues that there is a 'social gradient' that operates along the entire occupational and social hierarchy, meaning the more egalitarian a society the higher the life expectancy.

Where an individual lies on this hierarchy carries a direct link to life expectancy and fatal illnesses from conditions as diverse as stroke, heart disease, cancer, mental illness and gastro-intestinal disease.

The social gradient even operates in white-collar workplaces where employees are not poor or exposed to dangerous or hazardous work environments.

The report 'The Shape of Things To Come' finds that the industrial relations changes will inevitably widen inequality by pushing down the minimum wage and promoting individual work contracts. This creates a steeper social gradient.

read more

Leunig: Today's Spam

Emperor Howard

"I want to assure the Australian people that the Government will use its majority in the new Senate very carefully, very wisely and not provocatively."

This was John Howard, one year ago yesterday, responding to the unexpected news that an extraordinary result in Queensland had handed him control of the Senate and, with it, the opportunity to implement his program in full. To make his message crystal clear, the Prime Minister added another caveat: "We intend to do the things we've promised the Australian people we would do, but we don't intend to allow this unexpected but welcome majority in the Senate to go to our heads."

Yet, in the coming week, the Howard Government intends to introduce two of the most substantial pieces of legislation in its near decade in power — and rush them through Parliament at almost breakneck speed.

Neither was canvassed during last year's election campaign, for understandable reasons, but both raise questions about whether the Government's Senate majority is being used carefully, wisely and in an unprovocative manner.

read more

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Hawke attacks IR laws

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke has delivered a stinging rebuke of the Federal Government's industrial relations changes.

In the annual Lionel Murphy lecture in Sydney, Mr Hawke described the changes as an attempt to destroy the trade union movement and the arbitration system.

Mr Hawke says the workplace changes were an attempt to destroy the arbitration system and the trade union movement.

"It is wrong. It is unfair. It is un-Australian. It is immoral," he said.

He says the laws will allow employers to use individual workplace agreements to cut workers' pay and conditions, such as public holidays, penalties and meal breaks.

And he took issue with the proposed Fair Pay Commission.

"This is simply a monstrous trick on the least privileged workers in our society," he said.

read more

Rosa Parks dies aged 92

Rosa Parks, a black seamstress whose refusal to relinquish her seat to a white man on a city bus in Montgomery, Ala., almost 50 years ago grew into a mythic event that helped touch off the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's, died yesterday at her home in Detroit. She was 92 years old.

For her act of defiance, Mrs. Parks was arrested, convicted of violating the segregation laws and fined $10, plus $4 in court fees. In response, blacks in Montgomery boycotted the buses for nearly 13 months while mounting a successful Supreme Court challenge to the Jim Crow law that enforced their second-class status on the public bus system.

The events that began on that bus in the winter of 1955 captivated the nation and transformed a 26-year-old preacher named Martin Luther King Jr. into a major civil rights leader.

read more
.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Terror laws: former leaders call for public debate

Two former chief justices of the High Court have joined two former prime ministers, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, and a former chief justice of the Family Court, Elizabeth Evatt, in expressing concerns about the new counter-terrorism laws and calling for greater public debate on their far-reaching implications.

"Laws impairing rights and freedoms cannot be justified unless they are shown to be needed to target an identifiable, present danger to the community," the former chief justice Sir Gerard Brennan said.

"A legislature should not attempt to bring in such laws until the community has had an opportunity to examine their terms and decide on their purpose and effect."

The new laws will allow for terrorist suspects to be held for 14 days without charge and be subject to control orders, including house arrest for a year or more.

The former chief justice Sir Anthony Mason said recently that it was essential that adequate time be allowed for public and parliamentary debate of new counter-terrorism laws.

"It would be disappointing, to say the least of it, if full and frank debate were not to take place for fear that those who stand up for civil rights will be labelled as 'soft' on security," he said in a speech this month.

read more

Gough Whitlam opposes terror laws

Gough Whitlam, the former prime minister, has attacked the proposed anti-terrorism laws which would allow Australians to be "interned", and then face criminal charges if they spoke to their families or employers about it.

Calling for more debate on the proposals, Mr Whitlam yesterday accused the Howard Government of using fear as an election winner. He lamented the fact that the Labor Party had not joined in opposing the proposed laws.

Urging more time for debate, Mr Whitlam said: "Like anything, it should be open to debate in the Parliament. Sure, Parliament is a talking shop - that's what the word means - but Parliament makes the laws."

He said: "My main worry is the fact that, under the proposed laws, Australians can be interned and it's a crime for people to speak to their families and employers about it."

read more

Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard?

Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
A song by Mel Cheal (tune: 'Dad’s Army' theme song)

Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think We're On The Run?
We Are Australians Who Will Stop Your Little Game
We Are Australians Who Will Make You Think Again
So Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think The Unions' Done?

Our Awards Are Not For Grabs
We've Fought Too Hard For That
And If You Think You'll Bust Them
Then You're Talking Through Your Hat!

So Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think The Unions' Done?

Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think We're Laying Down?
We Are Australians And We Have Got The Might
We Are Australians Who Will Fight To Keep Their Right
So Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think The Battle's Won?

Shove Your Work Agreements
They're Not Worth A Worker's Damn
And Shove Your Work Relations Act
It Really Is A Sham!

So Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think The Battle's Won?

Yes. Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Howard
If You Think The Union's Done?
.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Salvation Army: IR laws exploit vulnerable

The proposed IR legislation gives the unemployed an opportunity to make themselves more attractive to an employer by committing themselves to an AWA that allows them to work 38 hours a week with no public holidays or week end loading. This allows the employer to reduce costs. However it exploits the vulnerable at the expense of the family minded employee who is not willing to trade these valuable days away without a significant financial benefit to the family.

As there are only 100,000 jobs on offer in Australia at the moment and officially 500,000 people looking for work (plus 800,000 on disability or child care pensions) there will be many people who will find these conditions attractive, even in these buoyant economic times; imagine what will happen when the unemployment situation gets worse.

For this reason the end result of these changes could be the moving of employment from those unwilling to sacrifice important time with their families to the desperate or those without family responsibilities. This is not a good move.

read more
.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Mona Brand: Playwright turns 90

She may not be a household name here, but Brand is a significant figure in Australian arts history, a pioneer of theatre who was unafraid to lace her stories with radical ideas.

Brand turns 90 today and to celebrate, NIDA and Newtown's New Theatre are hosting a birthday celebration tomorrow night, where her colleagues and friends will offer tributes, and excerpts of her work will be performed.

"I must admit that I do most of my thinking sitting down and either knitting or darning socks. Although darning socks has gone out of style, hasn't it?"

She never set out to change people's minds, but doesn't hide her pride at the thought that she may have done so anyway.

"I think I was just dealing with people and their situations and their problems. I was reading one of my plays for the first time the other day, all about the situation in Malaya," she says, pulling out a copy of her 1950 play Strangers in the Land. It follows a young white woman who travels to British-controlled Malaya and is shocked by her host family's treatment of the locals.

"I haven't heard about Malaya in recent times but I do know they don't have British there any more, owning everything. So when I read it again, I thought, well, I'm glad I did that."

But her main objective, says Brand, was to entertain. "I didn't want to push ideas down people's throats but of course I suppose it worked that way. But the most pleasant feeling was to be sitting in the audience hearing laughter from time to time," she says.

read more

see also Happy Birthday Mona Brand!
.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Bob Hogg: Democracy muted by fear

Australian Financial Review 20/10/05

Expanding the old sedition offence will also stretch the translation skills, interpretation and objectivity of ASIO and its cohorts.

Tragically, the sedition provisions were last used in 1960 in the prosecution of Brian Cooper, who was a patrol officer in Papua New Guinea. He was charged and convicted because - in pidgin English - "he advisedly spoke and published seditious words" when urging "the natives" to demand national independence. He lost his appeal to the High Court of Australia and committed suicide.

Malcolm Fraser: Laws for a secret state

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was agreed in 1948. In the years since, protocols and conventions established under it were designed to build a law-based world. The International Criminal Court finally came into force on 1 July 2002. This was a further major step in that direction.

It is more than unfortunate that our response to terrorism has reversed much of that progress and leaders in too many countries do not seem to understand that that is happening.The Government knows in relation to terrorism that the public is concerned, even fearful and can be made more fearful. These laws again play to conservative elements in Australian society.

It may be brilliant politics but will such laws make Australia secure? By its actions, the Government has long abandoned and lost the middle ground. The Rule of Law and "due process" has been set aside. Has the Government already created an environment in which people will accept too much if the Government says it will help in the fight against terrorism?

These new proposals should be opposed. No strong case has been made that these breaches in the Rule of Law will be effective in the fight against terrorism. The London bombings are probably used as a rationale, but apply these laws to London bombings, they could not succeed. The laws should be opposed on the basis of substance. The powers are arbitrary altering the quality of ASIO and of the police in significant ways. There are no real safe guards, there is no adequate judicial review.

The laws should be opposed because the process itself is seriously flawed. Instead of wide ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate. The laws should be opposed because they provide arbitrary power which would be dependent on trust, a trust that has not been earnt.

read more

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Terror Bill: Doing it in the dark

SMH editorial 18/10/05:
Australians ought to know better than to exaggerate ASIO's powers under the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, believes. Why ought they? It is because of the Government's unnecessarily underhand method of bringing the bill forward that they have every right to fear what it will do to civil liberties. ... Mr Ruddock would do better to explain why the bill's draconian and oppressive powers are suddenly so necessary.



He will have to do better than the combination of scaremongering and vague reassurance that he and the Prime Minister have offered hitherto. "The laws that we are seeking to enact do not deal with curtailing vigorous free speech in Australia," Mr Ruddock says. Oh yes they do. The bill published by Mr Stanhope provides that outsiders may not even speak about whether, or why or how detainees suspected of terrorist offences are being held, or what they think of it. The penalty: five years' jail. That is a savage curb on free speech.

In this attack on basic rights, the Government appears to have only the premiers on its side. Commentators have put their attitude down to a scary briefing they received before they entered talks with the Commonwealth on the bill late last month. The cause may be rather less exciting: the state Labor governments have been terrified of looking soft on terrorism. They may regret the loss of liberties, but they fear being blamed for a terrorist incident far more.

read more
.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Howard met by IR protests in Wollongong

Prime Minister John Howard has been given an angry reception in Wollongong by workers upset with his planned workplace changes.

About 100 workers holding placards denouncing the overhaul booed and shouted "shame" at Mr Howard as he left the new south coast electorate office of Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells.

Another 100 protesters, including firefighters, nurses, teachers and police, were expected to attend a mass rally organised by the South Coast Labour Council in central Wollongong on Tuesday afternoon.

South Coast Labour Council secretary Arthur Rorris said frontline workers wanted the prime minister to know what they thought about his proposed changes to the industrial relations system.

"It's good to see the prime minister in Wollongong," Mr Rorris said.

"But we would like him to listen to the voices of the many working people and their concerns. What we'd like to say to the prime minister is that working people do not approve of what he's doing, it's done without a mandate."

read more
.

Did you really pay for this?

Howard's high stakes IR gamble

There's another job that could be put at risk by these needless workplace changes - John Howard's. What Howard is proposing is the kind of change that costs governments elections, and flings parties into the wilderness, writes Tim Colebatch.

Some minor exceptions aside, these reforms change the rules in one direction. They remove rights, protections and bargaining power from 7 or 8 million Australians who work for companies. They give rights and bargaining power to employers.

For most workers, the key changes are that:

The no disadvantage test that was central to Howard's 1996 reforms is abolished.

Employers and workers will be able to sign agreements that remove workers' entitlements other than the four basic standards, for little or no compensation.

Workers will lose their protection against unfair dismissal.

Workers in workplaces of up to 100 workers will lose it completely. And an almost-unnoticed detail in the reform blueprint reveals that workers in larger workplaces too will lose their protection if the employer declares that "operational considerations" were a factor in their dismissal.

The removal of all the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission, except its power to punish unions for unauthorised industrial action. In the new rules, there is no umpire.

Outside the minimum wage and the four basic conditions, none of the rights the Government's ads declare "protected by law" are in fact protected. The employer just has to make sure that the worker's agreement spells out that they are being given up.

read more

Monday, October 17, 2005

Tunnel visions



States 'lured' into tollways fail on rail, water

Ports, railways and water systems have been starved of funds because State Governments have been lured into dubious private sector toll-road deals that often swallow hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

Leading economists and transport consultants said pressure from private investors for toll-road projects, which proved enormously profitable, had skewed national investment in infrastructure.

read more
.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Howard's war on us all

Terror laws, anti-union laws, laws to outlaw basic rights, conditions and entitlements, welfare laws, mandatory detention, laws that deprive people of access to the law! Draco (of draconian fame) had nothing on what Howard and his cabinet of failed lawyers plan. And it'll all come stamped like this: the latest logo of Australian corporate fascism.

Huge US rally highlights racial inequalities

Hundreds of thousands of black Americans have rallied in Washington to demand greater social and economic equality.

Speakers demanded greater action to improve education standards for black children, and to reduce the number of young black men behind bars.

The racial inequalities exposed by hurricane Katrina were a dominant theme of the rally, with speakers like Patricia Ford of the Washington Labor Council demanding action.

"I am sick and tired of the racism in this country and what I'm not sick and tired of is fighting for justice," she said.

read more
.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Terrorist laws to lock up objectors

Supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could carry a penalty of seven years' jail under the Prime Minister's new terrorism laws.

The changes also allow for control orders of unlimited duration, secret preventive detention, the monitoring of lawyers, and life imprisonment for funding terrorist organisations.



The draft legislation, disclosed by by Greens yesterday, details the far-reaching security regime proposed by John Howard for "very dangerous and difficult and threatening circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings.

New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era, and come down hard on those advocating violence against any religious, national or political group.

read more
draft Terror bill
.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Pinter: Torture and misery in name of freedom

By Harold Pinter who yesterday won the Nobel Prize for Literature
Published: 14 October 2005

The great poet Wilfred Owen articulated the tragedy, the horror - and indeed the pity - of war in a way no other poet has. Yet we have learnt nothing. Nearly 100 years after his death the world has become more savage, more brutal, more pitiless.

But the "free world" we are told, as embodied in the United States and Great Britain, is different to the rest of the world since our actions are dictated and sanctioned by a moral authority and a moral passion condoned by someone called God. Some people may find this difficult to comprehend but Osama Bin Laden finds it easy.

What would Wilfred Owen make of the invasion of Iraq? A bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of International Law. An arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public. An act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort (all other justifications having failed to justify themselves) - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

An independent and totally objective account of the Iraqi civilian dead in the medical magazine The Lancet estimates that the figure approaches 100,000. But neither the US or the UK bother to count the Iraqi dead. As General Tommy Franks of US Central Command memorably said: "We don't do body counts".

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery and degradation to the Iraqi people and call it "bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East". But, as we all know, we have not been welcomed with the predicted flowers. What we have unleashed is a ferocious and unremitting resistance, mayhem and chaos.

The great poet Wilfred Owen articulated the tragedy, the horror - and indeed the pity - of war in a way no other poet has. Yet we have learnt nothing. Nearly 100 years after his death the world has become more savage, more brutal, more pitiless.

But the "free world" we are told, as embodied in the United States and Great Britain, is different to the rest of the world since our actions are dictated and sanctioned by a moral authority and a moral passion condoned by someone called God. Some people may find this difficult to comprehend but Osama Bin Laden finds it easy.

What would Wilfred Owen make of the invasion of Iraq? A bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of International Law. An arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public. An act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort (all other justifications having failed to justify themselves) - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

An independent and totally objective account of the Iraqi civilian dead in the medical magazine The Lancet estimates that the figure approaches 100,000. But neither the US or the UK bother to count the Iraqi dead. As General Tommy Franks of US Central Command memorably said: "We don't do body counts".

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery and degradation to the Iraqi people and call it " bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East". But, as we all know, we have not been welcomed with the predicted flowers. What we have unleashed is a ferocious and unremitting resistance, mayhem and chaos. You may say at this point: what about the Iraqi elections? Well, President Bush himself answered this question when he said: "We cannot accept that there can be free democratic elections in a country under foreign military occupation". I had to read that statement twice before I realised that he was talking about Lebanon and Syria. What do Bush and Blair actually see when they look at themselves in the mirror? I believe Wilfred Owen would share our contempt, our revulsion, our nausea and our shame at both the language and the actions of the American and British governments.

You may say at this point: what about the Iraqi elections? Well, President Bush himself answered this question when he said: "We cannot accept that there can be free democratic elections in a country under foreign military occupation". I had to read that statement twice before I realised that he was talking about Lebanon and Syria.

What do Bush and Blair actually see when they look at themselves in the mirror?

I believe Wilfred Owen would share our contempt, our revulsion, our nausea and our shame at both the language and the actions of the American and British governments.

.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Kevin Andrews: "Unhappy workers can go elsewhere"

Workers who were unable to renegotiate employment contracts with their bosses could look for another job, Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said yesterday.

Asked what would happen if the employer wanted to scrap an agreement, Mr Andrews said: "Well, the worker in that situation has got the choice of renegotiating a new agreement or choosing to go elsewhere."

He also said new employees who were offered agreements that slashed previously accepted award conditions had the choice to "refuse to take the job".

And Mr Andrews claimed that many new employees would prefer to have a job that lacked conditions such as public holidays, rest breaks, penalty rates and shift loadings than remain unemployed.

"There is nothing wrong with that," he said. "It's better to have a job than to be on welfare."

read more
.

Reducing unemployment

"I have worked one hour so far this week. According to government statistics I am no longer unemployed. No wonder the unemployment rate is so low. "

Sydney Morning Herald letters 13-10-2005

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Global union negotiates pay deal

Maritime Union of Australia National Secretary Paddy Crumlin returned from Tokyo on the weekend after chairing negotiations with international shipowners that have won better pay and conditions for world seafarers on more than 3,000 ships. The outcome also provides job prospects and security for Australian maritime workers in a new international collective agreement, unique in global industrial relations.

A joint negotiation group of 100 international shipowners reached an understanding with the ITF on October 6 to include seafarers from developed countries among their crew. A special IBF committee will be established by the end of the year to progress these issues. Understanding was also reached that unionised waterside workers should stevedore ships.

"This is a landmark agreement," said Mr Crumlin. "It means we've not only narrowed the pay gap between low paid international seafarers from developing countries and our own, we are building ways to provide Australian, Japanese and European seafarers a future in the industry. At the same time we are protecting the work of waterside workers in these countries to join unions and be protected by collective agreements."

"The Australian Government is conintuing to discriminate against the national interest here," said Mr Crumlin. "They like talking up the history of the trade but ignore the role Australian shipping and Australian seafarers have played in achieving this. Pretty typical!"

read more
.

Employees more isolated and jobs less secure

The Federal Government's industrial relations plan conjure the memory of men in balaclavas with guard dogs patrolling the waterfront. Public support for the wharfies during the 1998 Patrick Stevedores dispute was consolidated by a maritime union court victory preventing the employer from effectively shedding its entire unionised workforce. This victory was made possible, in part, because Patrick was required to prove that it did not threaten to dismiss its employees on the basis that they were union members. It failed to do so.

The Government now proposes to abolish this onus of proof in applications to prevent breaches of freedom of association principles, making it difficult to obtain interim court orders to stop another Patrick-style corporate restructure.

Compromising job security and isolating employees are threads running through the reform proposals. We now learn that all workers, even those employed by employers with more than 100 employees, will be unable to get relief from unfair dismissal when they are dismissed on grounds that include "the operational requirements" of the employer's business.

read more
.

Former umpires criticise new rules

Former members of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have attacked the Prime Minister's plan to strip it of the power to set minimum wages as anti-democratic and ideologically driven.

Paul Munro, a former member of the commission, said he believed John Howard had long wanted to reduce its role.

He cited a speech Mr Howard made to Parliament as the Liberal Party's industrial relations spokesman in 1992.

"As I have said before, we will stab them [the commission] in the stomach," Mr Howard said during a debate on industrial relations. "We are up-front about it."

The information package on the new system, which the Government released on Sunday, described the commission's processes as "arbitrary and artificial".

"That's dishonest, it's propagandistic, it contradicts the record," Mr Munro said last night.

"I think it is one of the unfairest and unkindest cuts of all to have this ignorant blather coming from ministers and prime ministers, some of whom have never even set foot in the place.

"They treated it with contempt. They should be held up to ridicule themselves for such dishonesty about an institution that, for better or for worse, was doing no more than applying the legislation with integrity."

read more
.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Howard's "WorkChoices" simplified

1. Unfair dismissals for businesses with over 100 employees, the prescribed probation period is now six months.
2. Redundancies will not be able to be a ground for unfair dismissal
3. The so called $4k for unlawful dismissals is actually means tested legal advice through the govt's office of workplace services.
4. The so called fair pay commission members will be on five year contracts only, so no real independence.
5. Employers are definitely able to make signing AWA's a condition of employment in a new job.
6. The 38 hour week will be able to be averaged over 12 months.
7. The consideration period for EBAs is cut to 7 days and can be waived altogether if all employees "agree" in writing.
8. This point is ambiguous but it looks like only employers will be able to lodge agreements, which must be done within 14 days otherwise penalties apply.
9. When an agreement made under "WorkChoices" is terminated the minimum conditions will be those 5 legislated for, there is no mention of underpinning award conditions.
10. Union can no longer choose to party to non union agreements.
11. Despite the so called protections of public holidays and meal breaks, leave loadings, allowances and overtime/shift penalties, these can still be taken away in one line of an AWA stating they no longer apply.
12. AWAs can be up to 5 years long.
13. Agreements cannot include union picnic days, paid union meetings, trade union training leave, commitment to future agreements being union ones, union involvement in dispute procedures, or provide a remedy for unfair dismissals.
14. All awards will have their dispute procedures replaced by one produced by the govt, although it is not in the document.
15. No more s166A, tort claims can go straight to court.
16. All protected action ballots done by the AEC, with 20% of the cost to paid by the union, at least non unionists cannot vote in these ballots if initiated by the union.
17. Pattern bargaining invalidates bargaining periods, although there in no mention of the mooted secret ballot before initiating a bargaining period.
18. Protected action able to be terminated by third party application.
19. Industrial action being taken in a state jurisdiction can have section 127 orders to stop it.
20. Awards will not be allowed to have union picnic days in them.
21. Redundancy clauses in construction awards will not be allowed "genuine redundancy" only.
22. Construction awards must allow for part time work.
23. Ambiguous words on allowances they are only allowed where "the allowance reimburses the employee for expenses incurred in the course of employment" which doesn't look good for fares and travel allowances in construction awards.
24. In awards, no skill based career paths, no restriction on contractors or labour hire.
25. Awards to be rationalised/amalgamated at both an industry and employer level, a taskforce to report by the end of Jan 2006 on the strategy to do this
26. AIRC loses its award making powers except as part of this taskforce process.
27. Right of entry permits can be revoked or suspended by the AIRC for a whole union or its' branch where "one of its officials has abused the system".
28. For right of entry to investigate breaches, the official must provide details of these, also the boss can specify the room for a meeting and the route to be taken to that venue.
29. Organisers to use a state based ohs right of entry will need to have federal permit as well.
30. The good news is that it looks like s.210 and s.93 under the NSW IR Act applications will not be affected.
31. Reversal of the onus of proof in constructive dismissal cases, so the worker has to prove it now.
32. 5 million bucks to train bosses in how to sack people.
33. State awards and agreements of constitutional corps both become federal agreements minus offending bits and cannot be varied in federal system, presumably including pay rates and allowances.
34. The possibility of the creation of a new miscellaneous award for employees newly caught up in the national system that are not covered by an award by the award review taskforce.
35. One last point, all the people in the govt's propaganda material are white further evidence of the racist tendencies of Howard.

prepared by
Seán Marshall
Industrial Officer
CFMEU NSW Branch
Construction & General Division

Don't Let Our Work Conditions Be Cut By Individual Contracts

The ACTU will today (Tuesday 11 Oct) present a petition with around 160,000 signatures calling on Federal Parliament not to pass new workplace laws that allow workers to be pushed onto individual contracts that cut their take-home pay and remove important job conditions including overtime, meal breaks, penalty rates, redundancy pay, rostering protections and public holidays.

ACTU President Sharan Burrow said:

"The petition represents widespread public opposition to the Howard Government's extreme industrial relations agenda.

Unions collected these signatures in just a few months, but even so this could be the biggest expression of public opposition in the House of Representatives since a petition concerning beer and taxes was lodged five years ago.

The petition opposes Howard Government plans to:

* Change the way minimum wages are set to make them lower.

* Use individual contracts to undercut existing rights and conditions.

* Keep unions out of workplaces and reduce workers' negotiating and bargaining rights.

* Abolish redundancy pay and protection from unfair dismissals for the 3 million people who work in small businesses.

* Take away rights at work with laws that unilaterally override and weaken State industrial relations systems, awards and agreements.

* Reduce the powers of the independent Industrial Relations Commission to settle disputes and set fair minimum standards at work.

The petition calls for Parliament to protect the basic rights of Australian workers to decent minimum wages and awards conditions, protection from unfair dismissal and the right to reject AWA individual contracts and negotiate collectively with employers.

The Government would be wise to heed its message and back down on plans to take away many of the basic rights of working Australians."
.

Lambs to the Laughter

Monday, October 10, 2005

Howard's Anti-Union Bill: war on workers

"PM smashes union power"

This headline on the cover of Murdoch's Australian today describes the exagerated faith the Howard government has in it's new legislation.

The gutting of the 100 year old arbitration system and negotiated awards is to be accompanied by the Orwellian sounding "WorkChoices" and "Fair Pay Commission". The Fair Pay Commission is the result government's rage over the Australian Industrial Relations Court's balanced approach to minimum wage decisions.

They would like to abolish the AIRC but can't as it is part of the Australian Constitution, so they intend to gut it instead.

For the first time, outside times of war, the government has given itself "essential services" power, enabling it to declare strikes illegal it considers to be a threat to public welfare or to the economy. War on the workers is what this mob are about.

The great hypocrisy is of course that those politicians who ram these new laws through will not be subject to it themselves! Their wages and conditions remain safe!

Basic rights and conditions of 10 million Australian workers will be trashed to bring us into line with with inferior US standards and no doubt comply with the "Free Trade" agreement and bind the Howard government even closer to the super power source of all its ideas and dreams.

And taxpayers will have to fund an up to $100 million campaign of government spin and lies to sell this package! The most expensive government campaign in history and a bonaza to media owners around Australia.

No wonder US citizen Murdoch is crowing.
.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

More slant than substance in jobs reform ideology

If you don't like the sound of John Howard's industrial relations "reforms", don't be intimidated by all the politicians, business people and economists assuring you they'll lead to "more jobs, higher wages and a stronger economy".

Why not? Because the empirical evidence in support of such claims is a lot weaker than the urgers ever let on.

There's a lot of fashion in economics. At present, it's the height of fashion to believe that deregulating the labour market is the key to improving the economy's performance.

Just achieve a more "flexible" labour market and you'll get lower unemployment, higher productivity, faster economic growth and improved material living standards.

How do you make the labour market more flexible? Weaken unions, lower minimum wages, lessen employment protection laws and discourage collective bargaining.

These assertions are made unceasingly not just by almost all our local econocrats but also by the international econocrats of the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

read more

Nobel Peace Prize 2005: ElBaradei and IAEA

Mohamed ElBaradei, the international diplomat who battled the Bush administration over the best way to bottle up the nuclear-weapons genie, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday.

Six decades after the United States obliterated two Japanese cities with the world's first atomic bombs, the peace prize committee bluntly cited lack of progress in banning the apocalyptic weapons as justification for awarding this year's prize to Mr. ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog he leads.

"That the world has achieved little in this respect makes active opposition to nuclear arms all the more important today," the committee said.

Naming Mr. ElBaradei as this year's Nobel Peace Prize recipient delighted many in the disarmament community.

"It's very pleasing," said Adele Buckley, chair of the Canadian Pugwash group.

"Essentially, the United States has abandoned support for the multilateral approach." she said yesterday.

Ms. Buckley said she hoped the prize might shine the spotlight of international attention on the growing dangers of proliferation and the tireless efforts of Mr. ElBaradei, whom she lauded as "not the 'Yes' man that the United States wanted."

So desperate was the United States to replace ElBaradei as head of IAEA that they even considered Alexander Downer as a possible replacement!

read more

.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

US President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to attack Afghanistan and invade Iraq as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East

read more

User rights suffer in copyright jungle

The High Court has sensibly ruled that the Copyright Act cannot be exploited by suppliers of computer games and other software to carve up the world market and charge what each region will bear.

But Sony, which has finally lost its case against a supplier of PlayStation consoles modified to play imported games, and the rest of the industry need not fear.

The Howard government is likely to ride to the rescue and further amend section 116A of the Copyright Act, which goes beyond protection of legitimate copyright to preserve traditional marketing fiefdoms from global competition, if past changes have not done the trick.

Indeed, the government is obliged to do so under the free-trade agreement with the United States: it requires Australia to replicate the more objectionable aspects of US law to pander to global entertainment giants, but not the pro-consumer bits.

(from AFR Editorial)
.

Secret Taping: Devious and underhanded

Justice Shane Marshall this week threw out a claim by the former Building Industry Taskforce that construction company Multiplex had coerced a sub-contractor to make an agreement with the CFMEU.

In his ruling Justice Marshall said reasonable people might view the conduct of the government authority in secretly taping conversations, while not illegal, was "devious and underhanded".

CFMEU Construction Division national secretary John Sutton said the judge's comments reflect a wider view in the community that secret surveillance of workers is not simply unjust but also highlights the removal of basic civil rights all Australians understand and expect.

"The Howard Government has hidden behind its claim of industry reform to remove some of the basic rights all Australians understand, such as free speech and the right to privacy," Mr Sutton said.

"The new Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act has become the first brutal example of this.

"To achieve its goal of control, government officials are now empowered to spy on workers, develop a series of secret files on their industrial activity and even jail them if they refuse to dob in workmates.

"All Australians should be concerned about these changes as the government has already made it clear they are the future blueprint for the whole Australian workforce."
.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Archbishop condemns Howard's IR reforms

John Howard's industrial relations reforms had fuelled community fears that the civilised standards of democratic society were being further eroded, Melbourne Anglican Archbishop Peter Watson said last night.

Archbishop Watson told his diocesan synod that the "corporate model which judges success by the criteria of the balance sheet short-changes us, as if that is all that matters. Civilised society is not an extension of the corporate world. The corporate world should exist to serve the interest and wellbeing of a caring society."

"Weekends and leisure time are not optional extras. They must be preserved for the wellbeing of individuals, families and the whole
community and, ultimately, for the health of the economy."

read more

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

ACTU: New Postcard Campaign

A new campaign to send Federal parliamentarians postcards opposing the Government's workplace changes has been launched by the ACTU.

This is a chance for Australian voters and workers to express the sense of betrayal and disillusionment they have for the Federal Government with the main by-line on the postcard stating, 'I didn't vote for an attack on my rights at work.'

Postcard Image

To download the post card go to:
http://actu.asn.au/work_rights/tools_resources/
.

Special Minister of State: plans for electoral laws

Unions would be forced to disclose the sources of their funding under a toughening of electoral laws to be revealed by the Federal Government tonight.

The Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz, says that unions and other non-government groups should be listed as associated entities under the Electoral Act because "they exist almost solely for the benefit of the Labor Party".

Senator Abetz, who is preparing to take the plan for electoral reform to cabinet this month, is also examining ways to toughen up disclosure requirements for the Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF Australia, the Wilderness Society and the RSPCA.

read more

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Sydney: 150th birthday of the Eight hour day


In Sydney's Rocks area close to Observatory Hill is the Garrison Church, much used for weddings.

150 years ago the stonemasons working on the church downed tools and won an eight hour day, eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for themselves. On October 1 1855 they celebrated their new conditions with a special dinner.

No plaque yet commemorates this historic event, however the fact that this weekend is a long weekend (Labour Day ... formerly Eight Hour Day) is a fitting tribute.

read more
.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Report: Students bearing $13b HECS burden

The Federal Government's Higher Education Report 2004-5 shows the accumulated HECS debt of Australian university graduates is more than $13 billion.

Labor's education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin says it shows since the Government was elected in 1996, the accumulated HECS debt has increased from $4 billion to $13 billion.

"What it shows is there has been over a 100 per cent increase in university fees and students as a result of that are carrying enormous HECS debt, it's making it harder and harder for young people to buy a home and we already have evidence that young people are delaying starting their families because of this very high level of HECS debt ....

More than 60 university degrees are now costing more than $100,000 for Australian university students and we also know that HECS also has gone up on average by more than 100 per cent," she said.

Howard's terror laws

"THEY that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin, 1759)

"It must be a matter of serious concern that the leaders have agreed to assist the Commonwealth to circumvent one of the fundamental human rights protections contained in the Australian constitution." (John von Doussa, 2005)

When these new anti-terrorism measures become law, police can arrest whoever they like, people as young as 16, and imprison them for 14 days if they have "reasonable grounds" for believing they pose a terrorist threat.

What those reasonable grounds might be is anyone's guess. The fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence is out the window.

On top of that, "suspects" could be tagged with electronic tracking devices or held under house arrest for up to a year, again without charge. This would be subject to judicial review but - and here's the crunch - a review only to determine that the letter of the law had been obeyed. The judge would not be permitted to establish if there was factual evidence for branding any person a terrorist suspect.

Nor is there any mechanism to guard against these periods of detention, either 14 days or a year, being rolled over indefinitely. Detainees could be released, then re-arrested within minutes.

read more