Byron Shire nurses face uncertain future

BYRON Shire health staff face an uncertain future with the Northern NSW Local Health District yet to confirm staff roles and numbers for the new Byron Central Hospital.

The NSW Nurses and Midwives Association (NMA) and the NSW Health Services Union (HSU) say the health district has repeatedly delayed the release of the new hospital's workforce plan which details staffing and service arrangements.

Northern NSW HSU organiser Jonathan Milman said the uncertainty over jobs had health staff highly distressed and anxious.

"The district has made it very clear that they won't guarantee anyone their employment," he said.

"They keep making statements they want to make efficiencies and savings.

"Our members are so distressed and it's not acceptable. They shouldn't be placed in this situation with Christmas coming up and all the other worries."

Mullumbimby District Hospital NSW Nurses Association secretary-delegate Shauna Boyle said the lack of information about jobs was causing staff severe stress.

"At the beginning of the process we were told by the CEO that the workforce were guaranteed a job that we would just move over into the new hospital," she said.

"That has evolved… it became the people who have permanent positions don't have to worry but we can't really guarantee positions for the casuals.

"Then it became… we can't really guarantee positions for any staff."

As a result, the HSU and NMA are urging people to come to a community briefing session on the new Byron Central Hospital on Wednesday to ask questions on behalf of health staff who they say have been unable to get answers.

Speakers at the community briefing will include representatives from the Northern NSW Local Health District, Health Infrastructure NSW and the construction contractor Brookfield Multiplex.

AMWU: More jobs to go from Newcastle rail plant

In a further blow for manufacturing in the Hunter region, another 19 jobs are set to be slashed at the United Group Rail (UGL) Broadmeadow plant.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) will begin talks with the company this week, in a bid to mitigate the redundancies.

With a new light rail system planned for Newcastle's CBD, the union's state secretary Tim Ayres said it is crucial the Baird Government awards any contracts to local companies.

"Train maker United Group Rail is considering laying off 19 tradespeople," he said.

"This is going to further reduce the capability of United Group.

"It's really a result of the NSW Government delaying rail work, not investing in infrastructure, and sending rail projects offshore to low-cost destinations."

Mr Ayres said it is crucial contracts for the construction of Newcastle's light rail wagons are given to Hunter manufacturing firms, in a bid to stem the 'blue collar' jobs crisis.

He said local firms must be part of the equation when it comes to Newcastle's public transport overhaul.

"The New South Wales Government, against considerable opposition in the Hunter, decided to rip up the train line into the city," he said.

"That means there's an opportunity for light rail.

"Another opportunity for the government to demonstrate that Hunter Valley manufacturers can do the job, and that people in Macquarie Street have got the faintest interest in the interests of working people in the Hunter Valley.

"Representatives of the union will be in close talks with the representatives of United Group Rail trying to mitigate every redundancy that we can, save every job that we can.

"And make sure that United Group Rail has got the capacity and the capability to tender for all these rail opportunities in the future.

"This is a fight, not just for jobs, but for maintaining the capacity of Hunter Valley industry."

A coal tax to help the climate and the resource owners

Frank Jotzo, Australian National University

Most of the world’s remaining coal will need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid the risk of severe climate change: it is unburnable. Coal exporting countries could buffer the transition by taxing coal production or exports. This would raise revenue for coal producing countries, raise coal prices and reduce global carbon emissions.

Last week the Australia Institute launched a campaign for No new coal mines, including an open letter. In response both Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and and opposition leader Bill Shorten rejected a moratorium on new mines.

In global climate policy, overwhelming emphasis has been on interventions to dampen coal demand: emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, support for renewables, mandated energy efficiency and so forth. All of these are important.

Many countries are already raising the cost of using coal through taxes, emissions trading schemes, and direct regulation such as coal quality standards in China or the planned carbon dioxide emissions standards under the US clean power plan.

But so-called supply-side climate policy can also be part of the mix: limiting production or ramping up fossil fuel supply prices.

Ban new mines?

Banning new coal mines would be an intuitive but in many ways crude approach. The argument is simple: we need to phase out coal, so let’s not open more mines.

A big disadvantage of a moratorium on mines is that it would not allow efficient economic adjustments within a shrinking coal sector.

Carbon policies also shift demand within the coal sector, away from brown coal and low quality black coal towards higher quality black coal.

So while in general there will not be great prospects for opening new coal mines, in some circumstances expansion of high-quality coal mining could be part of an efficient transition. For any new mines there is of course the danger of inefficiently locking in high carbon infrastructure, such as new railroads and port facilities, which could become “stranded assets”.

There’s also the distinction between thermal (or steam) coal used to produce power, and coking coal for steel production. Thermal coal can be readily replaced with renewables, nuclear or gas. Coking coal by contrast has no direct substitute.

Further, a ban on new mines gives no incentive to cut back on production in existing mines – in fact their operators will work their mines even harder because there is less competition.

And for the ban to have its full effect, most countries with untapped coal reserves would need to join. This could be very difficult to achieve. Countries with significant coal expansion opportunities would feel disadvantaged in comparison to countries with large established mining operations that continue mining unimpeded.

Tax coal

The economically neat approach is to make coal more expensive in a way that does not differentiate between the source of the coal, and in proportion to its carbon intensity.

The straightforward way of doing so from the supply side is to put a tax on coal exports, or ideally a tax on all coal production which is then also reflected in coal export prices, in proportion to carbon content.

The global coal price then goes up, and energy users switch to lower-carbon alternatives which saves carbon dioxide emissions. Levying the tax on the supply side means that exporting countries get the revenue, offsetting reduced profits for coal miners.

In our paper “Market power rents and climate change mitigation: a rationale for coal taxes?” we modelled a coal export tax levied by the four largest steam coal exporters: Indonesia, Australia, South Africa and Colombia.

We find that a moderate coal export tax levied by those four countries would bring a net benefit to Australia. And global carbon dioxide emissions would be lower.

The import price for traded coal rises, coal consumption falls. And the revenue for Australia could be in the tens of billions of dollars per year.

The money could be used to support the structural transition in coal mining regions, to support R&D into the zero-carbon energy industries of the future, or simply to cut other taxes.

The outcome is improved if other countries join, for example the United States. The larger the coalition, the less “leakage” to countries that do not place a tax on their coal.

The efficiency of the policy is improved if the coal tax does not just cover exports but all coal production in a country. This levels the playing field and avoids an implicit subsidy on domestic coal use.

It is not about Australia going it alone

It is customary in Australia to assume that the country is too small to make a difference and other countries won’t join.

For example, in response to the no new mines campaign Prime Minister Turnbull said: “If Australia stopped exporting coal, the countries to which we export it would buy it from somewhere else […] it would not reduce global emissions one iota.”

This is not true. Any constraint on supply results in higher prices and less coal use and therefore lower emissions. Our modelling shows that even if Australia went it alone with an Australia coal tax it would have some effect, especially in the short term. But it is true that most of the effect on an Australia-only coal tax would be eroded by increased exports from other countries.

Any supply-side policy works properly only if the major players join forces. For coal this might not be so unachievable. There are only a few large exporters, and Australia is the second largest. They would all gain from tax revenue. And let’s not forget, the world is favourably disposed towards efforts to cut emissions.

Finally, what about the “moral case” for coal as set out by Energy Minister Frydenberg?

Indeed, electrification is essential for development. But it is electricity that helps the poor, not coal. And the poor typically bear the brunt of health impacts from coal-based air pollution, and may also suffer most from climate change. Solar electrification will often be the better option.

The future belongs to zero-carbon energy, and in particular renewables. Coal producing countries need to face up to this, and be pro-active about managing the transition. A coal tax is not around the corner but we should understand the options.

Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

NYT: Corporate Culture

On Page 5 of a credit card contract used by American Express, beneath an explainer on interest rates and late fees, past the details about annual membership, is a clause that most customers probably miss. If cardholders have a problem with their account, American Express explains, the company “may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration.”

Those nine words are at the center of a far-reaching power play orchestrated by American corporations, an investigation by The New York Times has found.

By inserting individual arbitration clauses into a soaring number of consumer and employment contracts, companies like American Express devised a way to circumvent the courts and bar people from joining together in class-action lawsuits, realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.

Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to apply for a credit card, use a cellphone, get cable or Internet service, or shop online without agreeing to private arbitration. The same applies to getting a job, renting a car or placing a relative in a nursing home.

Among the class actions thrown out because of the clauses was one brought by Time Warner customers over charges they said mysteriously appeared on their bills and another against a travel booking website accused of conspiring to fix hotel prices. A top executive at Goldman Sachs who sued on behalf of bankers claiming sex discrimination was also blocked, as were African-American employees at Taco Bell restaurants who said they were denied promotions, forced to work the worst shifts and subjected to degrading comments.

Sydney: Joe Hill Centennial Concert, Saturday 21 November 2015

Working-class hero, Joe Hill, died 100 years ago and there will be a concert to celebrate his life, music and legacy at the Teachers Federation Auditorium, 37 Reservoir Street, Surry Hills on Saturday 21st November from 7.30pm.

Joe Hill was a Union organiser and songwriter for the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) aka the Wobblies. Hill was framed for murder in the state of Utah – the authorities weren’t able to prove their allegations but his political activism was enough to convict him – and he was shot 19th November 1915 at the age of 36 to become the man who never died. His spirit lives on in songs like Casey Jones, The Preacher and the Slave, songs still sung at Union rallies; and many will never forget Paul Robeson singing the tribute to Hill ‘I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night’ during the construction of the Sydney Opera House in 1960.

The performers on Saturday 21st November are George Mann (USA) who has been part of the Joe Hill 100 Roadshow in America over the last few months and is giving a brief tour of eastern Australia; Maurie Mulheron, renowned for his infectious interpretation of Pete Seeger songs; The Sydney Trade Union Choir; Margaret and Bob Fagan; and a surprise guest or two. Come along prepared to sing your hearts out.

Tickets are available online for $20/$15 at www.stickytickets.com  Any proceeds go to APHEDA – Union Aid Abroad. The venue is a five minute walk from Central Station. Enquiries: margaretwalters2@gmail.com or phone 0427 958 788.  The concert is a joint initiative of the NSW Teachers Federation and the Folk Federation of NSW.