SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
Industrial relations: risks for workers in Coalition policyThe Howard Government’s labour market deregulation policy transfers the burden of employment risks onto workers. The key risks are, in a system designed to neuter the collective nature of Australian industrial relations, the dependence of individual employees upon managerial benevolence, job insecurity through weakened protections against unfair and arbitrary treatment within the firm, and the undermining of workers’ wages and terms and conditions of employment. Those risks increase as individuals lose opportunities for representation and protection by independent, collective unions. The Coalition's policy intentionally chooses the path of higher risk for employees. The Government's principal aim is not freedom of association. Rather, Coalition policy declares the Government's intention of ensuring 'that the concept of freedom to contract is protected, promoted and enhanced', both perpetuating the myth of equality in negotiation between the individual worker and an employer and switching the emphasis from employee rights to the employer. See full.
|
User login |
Peter Ruehl and bullshit in the AFR
Here's my suggestion.
Here is the end-game for the plan proposed by John Howard and all his ilk on the right-wing end of politics. I reckon we should skip all the intermediate steps (saved all the inconvenient "debating in Parliament" and such stuff) and implement it NOW!
1. Abolish all benefits to all workers immediately. (John Howard is working on this one as I write).
2. Those who object to this, should be sacked immediately. They can try to find the money to fight a court case for "unlawful dismissal".
3. Immediately coerce (did I say that!) remaining employees into signing Australian Workplace Agreements that are internationally competitive; where pay rates will be matched with, and pegged to, those equivalent workers in India (and paid in Rupees) or China (and paid in Yuan).
4. Anyone who doesn't sign an AWA will be sacked, and referred to point 2 above.
5. Offer jobs to any/all of the following:
(a) sacked workers who have since applied to Centrelink (who will be refused unemployment benefits unless they take the job at the internationally competitive pay rates on offer);
(b) migrants who aren't used to prior working conditions
(c) any other worker in the world who will work for the internationally competitive pay rates on offer.
6. Use the highest and lowest wages differential of USA as a benchmark. Aim to quadruple the spread by 2008 (unless the Rupee/AUD or Yuan/AUD is larger).
7. Anyone who complains about the government will be imprisoned for sedition or as a suspected terrorist.
As a result of this plan, those who are left will:
1. Be referred to Centrelink who will refer them to 5(a) above.
2. If unsucessful, apply to nearest Charity (Smith Family/ St Vincent de Paul/ Salvation Army) who will be overwhelmed and under funded (since those in a job cannot afford to give to charity and those who can afford to give to a charity will say "let the bludgers starve").
3. Sell children to business owner who wants to provide employment for "youth unemployed". Promised to provide food & board in exchange for 7 days work a week.
4. Take up residence in nearest cardboard box (Eddy Avenue is full now).
5. Wonder whether it is worth continuing to live.
Exclusions to this plan are:
1. Sick, injured, infirm, old or mentally ill. They are not economically viable "production units" (see Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged; speech by John Galt) and should be eliminated immediately. Suggest they be "released into the community" and/or incarcerated in a prison. Possible alternative is the Auschwitz solution (Arbeit Macht Frei rule) for all.
2. Executives. They supply the capital and need to concentrate is at much as possible in the hands of the fewest. Hence the need to lower wages and conditions.
3. Politicians. These guys help re-engineer the society which will keep all the production units in production.
While you were slaving away for an extra 2 cents an hour...
From the new York Times
Lawmakers' Profits Are Scrutinized
Hastert and Others Defend Land Gains
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A01
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) made a $2 million profit last year on the sale of land 5 1/2 miles from a highway project that he helped to finance with targeted federal funds.
A Republican House member from California, meanwhile, received nearly double what he paid for a four-acre parcel near an Air Force base after securing $8 million for a planned freeway interchange 16 miles away. And another California GOP congressman obtained funding in last year's highway bill for street improvements near a planned residential and commercial development that he co-owns
-------------------
IR reality made simple, by Johnnee
From the ABC
""Often people don't get on and that is why occasionally, if people don't get on, their employer and the employee have to part company and that's industrial relations reality isn't it." J W Howard
Neo-Liberal economics
(Dear administrator, on my Mozilla Firefox browser I don't see any break between paragraphs in the preview. Is there a remedy? Can this be fixed? - JS)
In Friday's (27 May) Australian, Paul Kelly wrote, in defence of the IR 'reforms':
The past dozen years of labour market reform documents its impact: higher productivity, more jobs, higher real wages, the lowest unemployment in 28 years and rising living standards.
Such results give Howard the best political protection against the massive scare campaign to come.
So Paul Kelly would have us believe that fundamental protections of workers' livelihoods and standard of living are an impediment to the growth of our economy and, ironically, preventing our lower paid workers who are ostensibly protected by the current IR laws from receiving the benefits of rising living standards that would ensue from economic growth.
(A short letter I wrote against the IR 'reforms', together with four others was printed in The Australian on the same day. Was this an example of The Australian giving a fair hearing to all sides? I think that this is the impression that they want to give, but interestingly, no challenges to Paul Kelly's article, nor the Australian's pro 'reform' editorial were printed on Saturday, that is, except for a bizarre letter, which accused Kelly of of being unwilling to give Howard the 'credit' for the 'achievements' and instead wishing to attribute most of the 'credit' due to Howard to the previous Hawke and Keating governments.)
The argument that everyone's living standards, even those of the lowest paid has risen spectacularly in recent years as a consequence of neo-liberal economic policies, has been put on many occasions and rarely, in my view, effectively challenged. As an example this was stated early in Peter Saunder's "Australia's Welfare Habit" (which seems to have helped to inspire, or else encourage, the recent IR and welfare 'reforms') that "real wages had more that doubled since the 1960's" (p4). He doesn't claim that the increases were spread evenly, but he does say that everyone has gained some benefit, even during the Howard years.
If the argument (which presumably is based upon Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures), has validity, then the case against IR reforms is considerably weaker.
However, I think that Paul Kelly's argument can be shown to be rubbish at many different levels. At least two middle class incomes are necessary for a modest house to be bought, whereas it was possible for this to be done a generation ago, and, as one contributor to Margo Kingston's Web Diary wrote not long ago, a holiday near the beach is no longer affordable by many working class families.
A friend put to me some years back that his Grandfather's (or Great-Grandfather's?) standard of living in Surrey Hills in Sydney in the first decade of last century was probably higher than that of many of today's workers. He could afford his accommodation and could walk to work and to all amenities and entertainment values. What would be the price that most of us would put put on such convenience today? This has been largely lost by most working class and even middle class people today, and it doesn't seem to have been measured in today's indicators of economic prosperity, particularly the GDP.
The claim of greater material prosperity needs to be put under the spotlight. I think a proper measure of prosperity, other than the GDP (which is not even being used in the way that its originator, Simon Kuznets intended), will show that whilst we are (unsustainably) consuming more of our non-renewable natural resources, that most of the advantage that should have been gained (at the expense of our children and grandchildren) has been lost due to the massive inefficiencies in the way our society is organised to suit the supposedly 'free' market, and that is even before we take into account whether or not the wealth has been distributed fairly.
In short, I think the case against economic rationalism can and must be made much more strongly and emphatically than it generally has up until now.
If we don't, then the consequences will be that Howard will continue to prevail with the help of such unchallenged disinformation provided by the likes of the Murdoch press.
Welcome Sinnamon
Hi Sinnamon, and welcome. Not many log in on Sundays else others would have greeted you etc already.
I found your post very encouraging. I suppose that means I agree with you entirely. You put the issues far clearer than I and I hope you continue with this topic.
The whole argument about us being better off today is, as you say, complete rubbish. Even if most people were better off financially, and they aren't, the life has been sucked out of many families and our society by this drive for profits and more profits. Only a few actually benefit from that and they are welcome to their money. Just not at the expense of our society, the unity of families and both the physical and mental health of the workers that generate the profits.
There is no balancing the losses with any so called gains and again I fail to understand why people, even those on $125,000 plus, would prefer a tax cut to more family or free time. If life is simply about work I'm on the wrong planet. It should be a balance as it basically was a couple of decades back and before.
Best.
Watch this space
Great Stuff Jim,
See the ACTU Rights at Work site for updates and information on their campaign. The Finance Sector Union site has a nifty one page summary and links. I will have a posting soon with more links and information on how we workers can respond to the challenge ahead.
industrial relations
So many young people rely on penalty rates to help pay their morgage. If these are done away with you could see more women trying to enter the work force. We then would need more child care places, not to mention more childcare workers. For you who do not know, a child careworker has to have a diploma which in most states is 3 years full time or 5 years part time, and I do beleive there has to be a ratio of qualififed people on the floor.
Then of course there are professional people such as pharmacists who can earn more money now overseas. Australia is very short of this profession, so if they lose their penalty rates perhaps they may decide to stay overseas. This is two examples I can think of. Surely this is all false economy.
Outstanding IR piece
Head to the Road To Surfdom (Tim Dunlop's blog) for an comprehensive & accurate take on Howard's IR policy. Excerpt:
"The left believes that there is an inherent imbalance of power between the employed and the employer and that part of the role of government is to equalise that discrepency and to minimise the risk it poses for the average worker. It believes that those who sell their labour are entitled to certain protections against those who are in a position to excercise power over them in this fundamental respect. The Australian nation was founded on a tradition of worker's rights and the notion of a "workingman's paradise" was not an empty bit of sloganeering. It was, and remains, a core Australian value (even if the gender aspect has been updated).
The left believes that government has a role in enforcing those protections via the law of the land in exactly the same way they have a role in enforcing any other law. In fact, it is more than a mere role: democratic government is at heart charged with the job of providing the environment within which business, workers and society meld into a workable whole that creates the circumstances under which individuals can flourish. Nothing trumps the value of the individual, but that individuality is meaningless in a society that gives priority to the abstractions of "the market". Workers, business, government are an indivisible--if necessarily messy--whole supported by a system of laws that should balance the sometimes conflicting claims of the players as fairly as possible.
The new workplace relation laws intend to shift that balance."
Exactly.
Re: Outstanding IR piece
Myriad, thank you for this post. Tim Dunlop has said everything I would like to say and he has said it far more clearly than I could ever hope to.
I'm waiting on a reply to my email to Steven Fielding (Family First).
I pointed out to him that the proposed IR laws were anti-Australian, anti-family and were contrary to Family First values.
We can only hope that Family First really does put families first.
Liberal Party gains?
Surely this move will only revitalise the union and Labor movement! What can the Liberal Party possibly gain by this?? Unions are already talking about action. There is a possiblity of moratoriums from all union members! I would like to think so.
Lib Gains?
unions and woman
All unions are made of people. Not beings from outer space, they are just us. Perhaps the 'just us' of australia have been asleep., It is time to wake up and not to be so complacent about the gains we have made. When I was 22 I earned 15 dollars a week then one day of course I got equel pay as I was sitting next to a male collegue who did exactly what I did. Yes and that next day I got 32 dollars. That took many years of hard work to get equal pay, can you imagine the young woman of today putting up with that.
Anger over Corby
There is Anger on the Gold Coast on the sentencing of Schapelle Corby to 20 years jail plus a $14,000 fine.
This website should follow the reaction to what is going to happen from the emotion that is overflowing from the Gold Coast and that 92 percent of Australians say Schapelle is innocent.
This emotion could attack Alexander Downer and John Howard credibility of compassion for the ordinary people especially after The Budget.
What has the Federal government done? Nothing.
John Howard after the sentence was read called on the Australian public to accept the sentencing of Corby.
Why should Australians accept that guilty verdict when they did not by media surveys all over Australia.
Schapelle, we are sorry and feel for you, and are with you in spirit.
IR And THE decision
Hey all,
Firstly on the Bali trial. I actually think Howard did achieve something. To me he only made an effort because of the media blaze but I recall hearing a report some time back after Howard had written to the Indonesian President which stated that the judges had subsequently been advised by government to make any decision they wanted.
Provided that decision did not include either a death sentence or life sentence. Given the judges record on NO innocent results a twenty year term is better than it may have been.
Don't interpret my comment there as supporting JH, it's just a report which appears to have been accurate in predicting the result and that was supposedly based on a direction from the government.
She still has life and support and hope which is a lot more than the other 130 Australians in similar positions have. But they don't have millionaire backers do they? Where is Howie's support for them? And Hicks?
Re JH's IR reform, good idea about FF. Sound them out before their vote is asked for. They would be ideal to have posting at the Dome. Another letter coming from me on that. By the way, excellent to see your post Maggie, and great work too. More please!
I don't expect the IR change will really be a big issue for very long and there's a number of reasons why I say that. Firstly Johnny doesn't need to convince anyone, he will have the numbers and can ram it through. I can't see any of the Lib/Nats making a stand on that issue.We can hope but they are in the Lib Party for many reasons but this issue is one they all support I'm afraid.
The unions have already made sounds about general strikes etc but I also hear calmer union voices saying don't react in that manner. As someone above, Gus I think and maybe Myriad (forgive me if I quote incorrectly), have said, that's what Johnny wants, for the unions to panic and open themselves up to confrontation with the public.
I think it's a matter of picking the battleground rather than letting JH do so. Play by our rules rather than his.
The unions are not strong enough to do that anymore as they withered away their support themselves by misusing members support for blatantly political campaigns decades ago. The need for unions was clear and we would still have our children down coal mines without them but they seemed to run out of valid issues in the 70's, got bored and started creating problems for their members rather than helping them.
If we need any clearer demonstration of how to finish off the union movement we only have to look to the docks and Patricks. That wasn't a contest and a general strike or simliar approach will simply alienate more potential support.
There is also the problem of workers who do abuse Unfair Dismissal procedures which is an easy convincer for public airing. I'm again not saying that is right as any legislation which reverses the weight and cost of legal proceedings for the worker to me is the way to go. But the few who do abuse it brand all claimants with the same name. Again an easy make in the media.
To me the only way to fight this degradation of workers rights and keep some balance in the employer/employee relationship is through a change of government which is what we are here for. Trying to change attitudes and voting intentions of existing and potential MP's.
Having written the above I am rather astonished that I have as I would prefer to scream and express my anger and frustration at what is coming. Maybe I'm learning to be more anlaytical rather than just letting my anger rule me. Or getting older as that mellows you I'm told. Perhaps I just see a need to play devils advocate as has been my vocation for many years.
Best.
Re: IR
Pegasus, I don't agree with you that the IR issue will blow over quickly.
Why? Because this legislation must be met head on by the unions, all workers, and every decent and fair-minded Australian.
The union movement in Australia lost support (that trend has started to reverse) not because of it's own actions but because of a decades-long campaign against unions by the media which has slowly but surely shaped the perception of many Australians when it comes to unions.
You may play devil's advocate if you wish, but to my mind the devil in this case is the Howard government.
There are a few of those who use this site who seem to have the opinion that if John Howard was removed the liberal party/government would be fine.
I don't agree with that line of thinking either. You can't kill this monster by lopping off just one of it's heads. The whole creature has to be attacked and rendered harmless.
And how is the union movement going to fight this battle any other way than by industrial action?
Every decent Australian should be prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Labour movement on this issue. Whatever the cost. However long the battle.
And just so there no misunderstandings. I have no connections to any unions, official or otherwise.
IR 2
Hey John and Hamish,
I feel very strongly about the need for workers rights and protection of their entitlements. Probably about half my working life was spent administering, interpreting and implementing conditions of service across a wide range of both Fed and State Public Service Agencies. I know the security that brings to the workplace and society.
And I certainly know what the effect of this pending legislation means to many Australians. Much as Bonsai cares to mouth words and promises of no one being worse of, that is inevitable under this attack. And it is definitely an attack, front on. I know that and so does anyone aware of conditions of service and entitlements.
I guess I put it badly by writing " I don't expect the IR change will really be a big issue for very long ". What I was trying to say was I don't expect the potential strike action which would be the initial reaction will actually achieve anything and would play into Bonsai's hands. He wants the unions to react that way so he can use that as more fear mongering. If they do react with strikes his point will be proved, regardless of how I feel. Which is I would prefer all Australians, all decent Australians as you wrote, to simply stop everything and hit the streets until this legislation is dead and forgotten. Today, now.
I just don't think there will be enough people ready to risk even a days wages to make a statement. That's Bonsai's biggest tool from my point of view, fear of financial and social instability. He wields it every day and it keeps conning many into following him to the cliffs (lemmings analogy).
I believe the way to react to this is a long term, organised and controlled campaign as better way to deal with it given the ease with which this legislation may be introduced. We will object and shout but it's Johnnie's dream, this legislation. He's been honing it for years and finds himself in a position to make it happen.
For me the best approach in reality is to try and ensure a change of government as quickly as possible and that is why I was thrilled to find a site like YD where this approach is actually starting and will pick up momentum. Who knows, we may pick up numbers and speed quickly enough to get the IR legislation dropped. I hope so but have doubts we can achieve that quickly.
It is a topic I am passionate about and do try and think things through before writing here. My real spur of the moment thoughts are highly irrational and impossible so I try to look beyond my first reaction and see what other options there are.
Of course we all know who the devil is and I don't wish to be seen as speaking for him. You noted my last paragraph where I was rather surprised by how I arrived where I have. I acknowledge though that he is a formidable and nasty opponent who knows what he wants and expects as oppositon before he moves and don't want to see the affect on families of a failed strike action and his sneering face, smug and satisfied. To him it is a game of chess, not people's lives and dreams.
I stick by my statements about the union movement damaging themselves. There has been the decades long campaign as well John, we all see that. But having experienced the indifference and self interest of officials of unions for nearly 20 years I was disgusted by their actions as well as governments. The union I was in and resigned from had nothing to offer members at that time.
I am pleased to hear that unions are restrengthening and hope that does happen before they are obliterated. I would join one today if I was working and may end up doing so anyway if they are moving in a positive direction.
And Yes, it's the Lib/Nat coalition which has to be removed. When Bonsai goes he will just be replaced and that is scary given the potential candidates. Equally Labor has little to offer. My preference from what I have seen is Stephen Smith but he's not the choice of many currently.
In short Hamish I agree with nearly all you say except you can look inside the Commonwealth Public Service for a shining example of what happens when there is no union. No offence to Maggie as I was in that union and wanted it to be strong but it has been virtually removed from the agenda in the APS and we have seen that from the way Bonsai has politicised the APS with no comment to speak of. The last place I worked in the PS there were 3 members out of 45 staff and I was the manager encouraging membership although I didn't believe in it for myself.
I do stand with those decent Australians, just not in any strike unless it is a mass movement.
Best.
Re: IR 2
Pegasus, I have always been a member of the relevant union for the industry I was employed in at the time.
My present "non-unionised" state is because I am currently unemployed.
I also (like you) have at times become discouraged with unions of which I was a member. But in time I came to realise that any union is only as strong as it's rank and file members.
It is apathy amongst the rank and file combined with a culture of union bashing by governments, employer groups, and the media which has weakened the foundations the labour movement in Australia was built upon.
This will be a watershed battle in IR in this country. We have to maintain the rage this time.
The time for abstract thought and idle chat is over. If there must be a struggle between all decent and fair-minded Australians and the Howard government over these proposed IR laws...so be it.
Let the terms of engagement be set by us and not by the Howard government and their apologists.
Abstract thought?
Hey John, I will cease all abstract thought as of now and just charge. I just didn't know that time was over. Idle chat as well..
I thought the docks battle was also a watershed but it was over pretty quickly as I recall. That sort of confrontation does not work anymore unless ALL of us hit the streets. Did you hit the streets in support of the wharfies?
I wasn't so much discouraged with unions. In fact I resented what they were using members funds for. Which was to self promote political careers for the people in charge of nearly every union rather than look after members. Of course it is only as strong as it's rank and file members but since the early 70's many unions have had little interest in those rank and file members and that's a big part of why they left.
They shouldn't have left but they did. Maybe the numbers are growing again now but it is probably too late to stop these changes as the numbers are low, significantly so.
Union membership
A look at the ACTU website has produced the following data. Data which would indicate that the 30% membership increase for the union I mentioned in my earlier post is certainly not the norm.
Over the last two years union membership numbers increased by 24,500 members a year. Union membership currently stands at 1,902,700 members.
Rises in union membership were significant in:
Some encouraging signs. But I must admit the figures are pretty depressing overall.
Re Union membership
John, perhaps you might like to read Greg Combet's interview on Sunday this morning in which he made this statement:
"That's not the truth. Over the last five years we've had a stable level of membership. We've been just underneath two million members for the last five years. We've stabilised the losses that were occurring due to economic change." Link: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1790.asp
I was quite disappointed with Mr Combet's interview as he showed no commiment really, just sat there as though he was reading a script, and fumbling it. Same as with Federal Labor, there is no real feeling in their words at all. Both the ACTU and Labor should be up on their hind legs showing passion and commitment. It's no wonder so many people don't care at this time.
Perhaps union membership in some unions has increased but according to Greg Combet there must have been a similar decline in other unions. This is likely the case as some industries are being demolished by the Howard Government, as well as State Governments.
The figures according to Mr Combet are that 25% of workers today are union members, 1 in 4. Again that will be higher in some unions and lower in others. If all those members did unite and have a general strike then it would indeed be a significant demonstration of outrage. Would that such a protest does take place but I fear it will be sporadic and easily used by Howard for his "spin cycle".
Believe me John, I want this stopped as much as you but I don't see such action as useful and maybe counter productive. Nothing angers families more than no public transport, no teachers, no nurses etc despite the cause and if those areas do strike it will not help unless it is unison with all others.
I have no doubts that union membership will start to climb rapidly once most people really understand what is happening. At the moment it seems like just some more IR stuff so most people don't even listen when it is mentioned. I guess that's part of our role, for each of us to try and help others see what is going to happen rather than sit back and say "I told you so".
I'm not sure how we might do that but we could look around for other campaigns (I'm sure the ACTU will be doing this shortly if not already) and try to help them out.
Agree entirely that no one has a full picture of even what is proposed yet so none of us can know. We have a ballpark idea though and, as you say, just disagree about how to attack the changes.
I think you should be proud to have participated in the wharf dispute as it was quite dangerous for individuals to do. I'm sure you are proud and you have my admiration for that.
It has been a pretty good day for a change and I trust our night is even better.
Best.
QTU Newsflash
I just got somer encouraging news from the Queensland Teacher's Union. I've put a few excerpts below. If you are interested in reading further, here's the link: http://www.qtu.asn.au/nf14-05-final.pdf
The Howard Government’s planned industrial relations changes threaten the working conditions and pay of Queensland state school employees as they do the rest of the Australian workforce. While Education Department employees will not be the first to suffer, the impact is inevitable.
The QTU, LHMU and QPSU - the three unions representing most Education Queensland employees - have agreed to historic joint workplace meetings to inform employees and respond to the plans.
...
Nationwide week of protest
The ACTU is coordinating a nationwide week of protest from 27 June to 1 July - the second week of the school holidays.
The focus will be rallies on Thursday 30 June - the day before the Howard Government takes control of the Senate.
In Brisbane, the rally will be held at 12 noon at King George Square in front of the Brisbane City Hall. Rallies will also be held in major centres on that day. As many EQ employees (and their families) as possible should attend these rallies to protest the Howard Government’s changes.
...
Resolutions
That this meeting BELIEVES that Australians should have basic rights at work, including decent minimum wages and awards conditions, protection from unfair dismissal and the right to reject AWA individual contracts and negotiate collectively with their employer;
and OPPOSES the Howard Government’s plans to:
• Remove employment conditions from awards.
• 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.
• Reduce the powers of the independent Industrial Relations Commission to settle
disputes and set fair minimum standards at work.
• Take away rights at work by using federal laws to unilaterally override and weaken State industrial relations systems, awards and agreements.
To Pegasus
Pegasus, thanks for the link I'll certainly have a look.
As for the Patrick's dispute, I was merely showing my personal support and my empathy to a group of fellow Australian workers I believed were getting a very raw deal.
I didn't consider that it was dangerous for an individual to do so and no great reason for self congratulations. it was just something I felt I had to do.
As you say, there will be campaigns being organised across the country to fight against the proposed changes to IR laws. Let's have a look at those campaigns and see if there is any way we can help.
I'll close with a fragment from Henry Lawson:
“If at times I’ve blundered blindly
Bitter heart and aching brow
If I have wrote a line unkindly
Well I’m sorry for it now
Lawson
Hey John, I have never had a liking for poetry but I wish I did as there is so much in what many brilliant people have written.
Unfortunately the English teaching at High School turned me off poetry due to the approach adopted. We were constantly analysing poetry and our teachers seemed to think there were right and wrong interpretations of words written. To me the understanding of words is in the eye of the beholder, not what one person may decide.
A side issue, an old gripe for me.
I appreciate your quote very much and know that I have been there many times myself. As long as I can see and accept it when I do I'm OK about that.
United we stand, divided we fall! I didn't know who wrote that so I just looked it up. Aesop. Who would have guessed?
Best.
Re: Lawson
Pegasus, no worries.
As you say "united we stand".
I forget who said "divide and rule", it wasn't John Howard...but it could have been.
Len, sorry about butchering poor old Henrik Larsen's words.
I'll just ask the nurse to turn down the light, while I hold my last review. (if that's okay with you?)
Henry Lawson
John, Don't murder Henry Lawson. Henry was an alcoholic but I bet he didn't play darts in the pub in the 1890s. He was there writing The Last Review.
I was human, very human, and if in the days misspent
I have injured man or woman, it was done without intent.
If at times I blundered blindly‚ bitter heart and aching brow‚
If I wrote a line unkindly‚ I am sorry for it now.
But I am not Henry Lawson a sorry sight. I am not sorry for what I bloody well write.
I am just in a sorry state, and if I should blast and bite you, then just call me your mate.
Re: Abstract thought
Yes I did travel from where I live to Townsville to support the waterside workers during the Patrick's dispute.
This was totally a personal decision on my part and (as far as I know) I was the only person from my town to do so.
As for union membership numbers, people from within the various unions would have to confirm (or otherwise) if membership is increasing or decreasing.
I have seen reports from one union which indicates around 30% increase in membership over the past couple of years.
I would call a 30% increase significant. Hopefully that sort of increase is the norm for all unions.
As for the rest of it...we will just have to agree to disagree on the best way to combat Howard's pre-emptive IR strike on Australia's working poor.
Neither of us are the repository of all knowledge on this subject, but each of us is entitled to his own opinion on this issue.
Have a nice Sunday Pegasus.
absolutely agree John
The Industrial Relations "reforms" are an attack on our democratic institutions as much as abolishing cross-media ownership laws, building concentration camps and unaccountably invading other countries.
I'm not the expert here and I'm keenly reading media and other's posts trying to get my head around what's going on here. But things like award wages and conditions, unfair dismissal laws and the right to be represented are features of our society that have come about politically - from the mediation of our legislators who were elected by us - to protect ordinary people from the power of very powerful employers who are not elected by us.
Want to know what a labour force (citizenry in more polite language) looks like without these sort of legislative protections? Look at poverty in the United States, look at slavery in South East Asia. Look wherever you want. Just don't ever take Australia's hard-earned industrial protections for granted.
And make no mistake that the big companies involved - the ones funding the Liberal party and lobbying the government - are making plenty of dough in Australia. The guarantee of a reasonable, life-sustaining cut for the workforce is hardly a socialist ideal. It's merely the ideal of a desperate beggar, but it's hardly time to knock it.
The short story is the piddling cuts Howard gave to the 'battlers' are being taken away, and the ground set for them to be paid less and less - which will be reported to us as, "productivity gains".
In terms of democracy, we aren't even debating the core issue which is freedom of association. In the workplace this is becoming illegal in some cases, and discouraged in all cases. The neolibs are manufacturing alienation in workplaces which have traditionally been organised. They're doing the same on campuses. The social battle, as I've said in other contexts, is against alienation.
Needless to say the companies and the government are extremely well organised and have enormous collective negotiating power, along with an ugly ideology. This is not the time to bash unions.
the rule of law
Hi Len. I think you mean 92% of Australians 'as measured through opinion polls', which isn't necessarily the view of 92% of all Australians: certainly a lot of people I've heard speaking on the issue have strong doubts about her innocence, notwithstanding the apparent bungling of the investigation by both Indonesian & Australian law enforcement agencies.
Whether she 'did the crime' or not, it seems like she'll 'do the time': the tragedy lies in a life wasted.
Our cynical little prime minister for life has tried to capitalize on the situation, as usual. Part of his opening statement to the media today follows:
"In recent months there has been unprecedented interest in Schapelle Corby. And now that the guilty verdict has been handed down by the Indonesian court and Ms Corby has been sentenced to a jail term of 20 years, there will be deep feelings in the Australian community. I recognise that. I say at the outset that guilty or innocent I feel for this young woman. If she is guilty I feel for her that a tragic mistake, a tragic act has done so much damage to her young life. If she is innocent of course my feeling for her is redoubled."
And without adding too much in the way of my own cynicism to the situation, would feelings have been as strong if Corby wasn’t young, attractive, teary & great ‘media material’?
Where’s the uproar over the ‘Bali 9’, Douglas Wood, David Hicks, Peter Qasim?
Maybe if so many smart & clever people hadn’t tried to ‘help’ Corby, there might have been a different outcome?
Who really knows Len?
Cheers.
You say potato I say Patato
John, Do you want an Indonesian court case on it? I'm not stepping down from your inaccuracy John.
92% is by opinion poll and that can be interpreted as 92% of Australians or it can't be interprested as 92& of Australians.
What language are you talking John, Indonesian. You sound like you are talking Indonesian as I am talking plain Aussie.
Now to get back to some honest Australian language.
It is what I mean and honestly what I mean that 92 percent is by opinion poll and that is the same as 92 perecnt of Australians.
Listen to the other 8 perecnt yourself J, But rememeber 92 percent are judging you John while 8 percent judge me.
judge away ...
Judge away Len...
I'm interested in reasoned & constructive debate, not point scoring just for the sake of it.
Schapelle
John, Millions of people have had a horrid day, and millions of Australians are crying over what has happened to Schapelle. You aren't. Well good for you. I don't judge you I feel sorry for you,
You are in Sydney. I am right here near where Schapelle lives. I am in her neighbourhood.
But out of sight out of mind for you. Well it ain't for me.
Re: Anger over Corby
Len, I agree with you.
Doesn't it sometimes feel like you are in the ring with a gifted welterweight?
The punches just keep coming.
Corby Blues
Anyone out there a lawyer? If Chapelle is innocent, could she sue Qantas for not providing the necessary security on the luggage for which they are responsible while in transit? If the evidence is about to be destroyed by the Indonesian justice system, can they do this before the appeal?
On you Jim
This is surely going to be one of the biggest political fights this year. At least, I'm praying it's a fight, as this is one of the most damaging, undemocratic, unbalanced and irresponsible package of "reforms" I have ever seen.
From James Bennet, Lecturer in History, University of Auckland, 2 nights ago on Radio National's Persepctive:
"One key area marked out for reform is, of course, industrial relations. The federal minister, Kevin Andrews, has mooted the adoption of a British-inspired minimum wage regime in which the determining mechanism would be controlled by a coterie of employers – with input from economists. Such a system would overturn the framework provided by the Industrial Relations Commission in which evidence from government, employers, unions and other interested parties is heard before making determinations on wages.
A century ago our forebears bequeathed to us a system of centralised employment regulation and industrial dispute resolution which has seen many challenges over the years from across the political spectrum as well as modifications to its machinery. Common awards that set minimum conditions now co-exist with enterprise agreements and individual contracts. But it seems to me that the most radical departure from the old system of regulation – should it be introduced – is one in which wage fixing becomes the sole domain of employers and economic advisers....
In this era of rapid globalisation the pendulum has clearly swung toward employers. We hear much about a flexible labour market, ‘world’s best practice’ and productivity gains. What we hear little or nothing about is the redistribution of those gains ...."
To read his whole piece - based on his research of the Labor movement in Australian & New Zealand, go here. It was an excellent historic & present-day analysis.
We must back any politician willing to stand up & fight this package. Firstly we also need to reframe it away from being seen as a "reform". And we also need to identify which if any National & Liberal Senators in particular are not in favour of this.
To Myriad
Hi Myriad. Yes this radical attack on the living standards of Australian workers should not be seen as IR "reform".
It should be seen for what at is. John Howard flexing his mandate and imposing his ideology on Australian workers.
The percentage of Australian workers who can be counted among the working poor will increase dramatically.
I'm looking forward to a backbench revolt by Liberal members of parliament over this issue.
Wishful thinking?
When wishing
When wishing it's wise to own red sparkly shoesclose your eyes and say "I just want to go home". The back bench of the liberal party and the "ginger group" as I understand it are all cheering as this is what they have been lobbying for on behalf of their mates in business for years.
When contemplating class issues such as industrial relations I always think back to that old mate of the worker Peter Reith, who said in 1996, "never forget whose side we are on, the side of business and profits"
Given that the ALP seems to be offering little but token opposition, we are all in for a rough ride.
in unity.
Honestly, I don't know
Hi John,
"I'm looking forward to a backbench revolt by Liberal members of parliament over this issue. Wishful thinking?"
I have to glumly admit little knowledge of the general Liberal consensus on IR reforms, and what if any, is the nature of any disagreement amongst the ranks. I am hoping more informed people than I can shed light on this - Jim perhaps?
Certainly I think that along with strongly supporting Labor & the minority party's opposition to this, we have to look for (and pray to find) especially Liberal / National Senators who are not comfortable with this.
I do suspect that Howard will be more ruthless than ever in qushing opposition. This is his dream - Australia as a semi-slave stocked factory for the corporates.
Here's a question - what's Familiy First's position on this? I'll go see if I can find anything. 'Cause this sure as hell isn't family friendly.
industrial relations effect on the family.
The Howard Government always says how it believes in family values, etc. Well don't we all. But listening to a person of some note on radio National this morning, it would seem that this winding back of the hard fought gains over many years, that our fathers fought wars for is about to erode family life.
One less annual leave, no holiday loading There is not many people who book a trip overseas with the holiday loading it usually goes on the children, re school shoes. Annual rates to the council etc so the money is not there so it does not go around, how short sighted is this.
So this of course means Mum and Dad see less of the children, and life is made more difficult when dad and mum go on annual leave. This could also mean no treats e.g going to the cinema, eating out etc. Has any one bothered to point out to John Howard, that the picket fence and the rose hedge garden will go for ever? No penalty rates, which of course often pays the mortgage, or just helps a family get by. So what do Mr. MRs. Average do, well they have less children, they spend less. That means less services which in turn effects jobs. All this could be a slow process, but why why!? One would ask, as Mr. Beatie said, why do this when the economy is so good?
The only good thing may be that people will realise what they voted for and that it may help revitalise the unions.
Hellishly unfriendly
Myriad, I think we are on the same wavelength on this issue.
The Family First gambit is certainly worth a try and I'll be contacting Mr Fielding as to his voting intentions.
Perhaps the "fab five" liberals who have already shown the courage to take Johnnie on over mandatory detention could be persuaded to take this cause up as well?
You are also perfectly correct in saying we need to make sure the ALP and the minor parties stay "true to the cause".
FF Position - any hope?
Check out the Family first party policy on IR. Remember that their first Senator (Steven Fielding) takes his seat on July 1, and is pivotal to Howard's control of the Senate. Excerpt from the whole:
...."Family First recognises that a unique industrial relations system of law that has a legitimate place for trade unions has arisen and developed in Australia over a substantial part of our history. Family First believes that the system of Awards, Australian Workplace Agreements and Enterprise Bargaining generally meets the needs of Australian workplaces but acknowledges that many Australian workers are missing out on adequate conditions because of their casual or outworker status or because they are in unregulated and low paid industries.
Family First will support improved provision of minimum entitlements (such as sick leave, annual leave, and family leave) for employees who do not come under the above mentioned agreements or awards."
One would think - hardly a policy platform from which to leap to supporting Howard's demonic package, given it removes the current system that FF clearly support's and weakens every area they highlight as ones in which workers need more protections, not less.
This should be interesting.
wouldn't rely on FF
Family First's main preoccupation prior to the election was ensuring the Greens were stifled (thanks ALP for your help there). Their agenda is pure fundamentalist evangelical religion plain and simple.
They have an exeedingly narrow version of family and a downright hostile view of unions, they'll happilly go along with John in exchange for some more discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians (and witches!)
Re: wouldn't rely on FF
Hi Djinn, you may be right.
In spite of repeated attempts I have not been successful in getting a reply from FF senator elect Steven Fielding regarding his attitude to the IR legislation.
Perhaps FF should change it's name to WMCCCFF (White Middle Class Conservative Christian Families First)?
WMCCCFF
I was about to say I don't know if the party leader would approve of the name change since the last time I saw her (federal election) she appeared to be of Indigenous descent.
No sign of her on the website anymore, their only successful federal candidate is now apparently the party leader. So my post is pointless but I don't have time to change it as I have to go and vomit after spending too long at the FF website.
May I just say careful with the acronymitous pidgeon-holeing... I know quite a few "WMCCF"'s who support true democracy and strongly oppose the rise of the fundamentalist right.
Re: WMCCCFF
Sorry I meant to add fundamentalist to the name.
I also know a lot of WMCCF's who support John Howard not true democracy.
fundamentalists
Steven Fielding's speeches
Check out Steven Fielding's speeches on work & family here and here.
They are not directly about IR reform, but they are about supporting workers to have a life outside work - which means more rights, not less.
Methinks we should be able to expect Family First opposition to this pile of crap.