The right to strike to save the environment?
Why shouldn’t there be a right to strike to save the environment in the Fair Work Bill? Why should workers and their unions be penalised when involved in bargaining on environmental protection claims?
Why should workers be not legally allowed to attend legitimate protests such as community rallies against corporate and government failure to address global warming?
Why should employees be able to be victimised by employers or the state for expressing their voice on climate change?
Why should it be unlawful to impose legitimate green bans supported by the community?
You know my answers to these questions – the right to strike.
According to the Fair Work Bill such workplace rights are to be denied. Unless the Parliament reconsiders the issues. Contact your MP now.
I do not want to repeat the scientific evidence explaining the global warming and environmental breakdown. It is worse than I thought – the human race faces an environmental emergency.
The challenge of solving the environmental crisis is together with the GFC, the major dual challenges of this century. The government’s recent policy announcements in the green paper are most disappointing.
This world environmental crisis is being tackled at different levels with good policies. One example is the ACTU and the Australian Conservation Foundation policy for ‘green jobs’ in sectors like renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable water systems, biomaterials, green materials, green buildings and waste recycling, with up to half a million jobs to be created.
But under the Fair Work Bill now before the Senate inquiry unions cannot without legal risk campaign for these issues, with industrial action in reserve.
Employers would legally contest that such action does ‘not pertain to the employment relation’ or if during the life of the agreement is outlawed. Workers can talk to employers but not promise any lawful pressure.
In a modern democracy, accepted principles of freedom of association enable workers to freely join unions and be active over whatever issues are democratically decided, including global warming issues.
Green bans backed by citizens’ support, in a democracy must not have workers or unions penalised.
In the 1970s, the NSW Builders Labourers Federation embarked upon ‘Green bans’ industrial action to protect the environment by refusing to take jobs constructing a luxury complex on undeveloped bushland, on the Greenbelt in Sydney, respecting community opposition to this project.
The environmental and community positive value of the ‘green ban’ backed by citizens’ action has been widely accepted over the last 20 years. Environmental union action, although unlawful at common law and technically breaching competition law, the Trade Practices Act, was not always penalised. Books and articles now celebrate the belief in green bans.
An important grounding of the right to strike grounds reasoning is in democratic principles that may be wider than collective bargaining, here environmental concerns. Novitz argues:
‘…considerations of a social character should be permitted to influence the market-led considerations often taken by employers… to extend the concept of ‘workers’ ‘self-interest’, so to accommodate industrial action taken on a principled stance. This is an attempt to relate the right strike back to the socio-economic interests of workers.
Such strikes could be considered justifiable on the grounds of individual conscience and moral autonomy or as an extension of free speech. Indeed a strike may be viewed as an aspect of acting as a responsible citizen, a role which cannot simply be suspended during working hours.’
Further, the green ban form of industrial action is a means:
‘…allow the values of the ‘life world’ Habermas (1997) to permeate the capitalist system.
The Sydney ‘green bans’, were where constitutional democratic procedures have not decided how to develop Sydney before the labourers stepped in; profit making builders had. The green bans may be understood as taking one step further a union goal traditionally applied to setting wages and conditions of employment; substituting a conscious group decision for a market determination.’
Arguably the Fair Work Bill should be amended to ensure a lawful green ban.
Senator Bob Brown: ‘Green Bans are going to become increasingly important as we head into an era of climate change over the next 10 years . . . and the Greens policy is to allow workers to make climate change not just a household issue, which they already are, but a workplace issue.
The Greens have a very clear policy on this that allows workers to have the internationally recognised right to strike for whatever matter they choose, if that’s an environment matter, so be it.
Furthermore, the Building and Construction Industry Act (2005) outlaws industrial action and green bans by the CFMEU and other unions.
The Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, investigates, interrogates in breach of fundamental civil liberties and prosecutes workers and unions for legitimate industrial action, such as on the environment.
See the film ‘Constructing Fear’ and the ‘Rights On Site’ website www.rightsonsite.org and www.cfmeu.asn.au/construction
See my paper Australian Institute of Employment Rights at www.aierights.com.au
I call again for the repeal of the BCII 2005 and the ABCC immediately.
There should be only one federal law for employees. It would be cruel and Orwellian to repeal the BCII Act but keep building and construction industrial action unlawful by retaining in the FWB the WorkChoices restrictions on the right to strike.
right to strike on the environment
