ACTU Congress: Boyd
It is a worthwhile exercise to assess some aspects of the recent ACTU Congress to aid future activities for trade unions. By Brian Boyd, VTHC Secretary
The ACTU officers said at the beginning of the Congress that its deliberations should focus on the need for more IR legislative reforms, a renewed Growth and Campaigns strategy, how unions should respond to the Global Financial Crisis and how to achieve the best OHS national harmonisation laws framework.
The Congress led with a major discussion to update and fine tune the ACTU’s Industrial relations legislation policy with a key demand that a second tranche of IR reform is needed post the introduction of the Fair Work Act on the 1/7/09.
There was unanimous agreement that this happen as it was widely accepted that the new Act (replacing Howard’s universally despised WorkChoices legislation) still contained key elements of WorkChoices and these restrictions needed to be removed. This stance was underpinned by a recent ACTU Executive report (tabled at the ACTU Executive meeting of 5/5/09) that declared the Fair Work Act breached ILO conventions in a number of important areas.
However two approaches to the IR ongoing reform question emerged in the Congress deliberations. ACTU officers and some major unions put an emphasis on exploring how to enhance collective bargaining arrangements within the new Fair Work Act.
However, another approach emerged: the union movement should place its efforts on campaigning for a better IR Act, as the inadequacies of Fair Work Act were already apparent. When Federal IR Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard addressed the ACTU Congress (3/6/09) she promoted the former approach.
She said rather than pushing for a new IR reform package the union movement should be “pounding the pavement” to find ways to make the Fair Work Act work, rather than “walking the corridors in Canberra” looking for further IR law improvements.
In her address Minister Gillard claimed the ALP was the party of “fairness and decency at work” and that WorkChoices was “a stain” on Australian history which “we are…sweeping away”. She went on to also claim that when the Fair Work Act kicks in, WorkChoices would be “cleansed away”.
There was no acknowledgement that it was now public knowledge that her Fair Work Act contained core elements of WorkChoices in breach of ILO conventions.
But Minster Gillard went further. She said the federal government had other things to do anyway. There was the challenge of the global financial crisis. In a patronising manner she claimed that saving jobs and reversing the rise in unemployment were her “No 1” priority.
As if unions were not concerned or focused on the protecting of jobs and jobs creation. As if unions campaigning for a real and comprehensive end to WorkChoices were somehow not concerned about jobs for their members.
The fact is if unions didn’t have the ongoing legislative restrictions on how they go about their normal interactive and representative relations with their members, they could do more, on the jobs front.
This ‘straw man’, trade-off/back off scenario is also patronising. By crudely attempting to play off the natural concerns of unions about unemployed workers against claims on an ALP government to continue to improve workers’ rights, is almost dirty politics.
What was dirty politics was when the Federal IR Minister, faced with a sea of yellow T-shirts worn by over 500 delegates, pedalled employer mis-information. The T-shirts read: “One law for all – Abolish the ABCC – Free Ark Tribe”.
Ms Gillard, in support of ongoing ABCC-type powers within her new IR system signalling out building workers, repeated misinformed media reports about a recent dispute in the Melbourne building industry. Some matters allegedly relating to this dispute are now subject to police charges and before the courts. The media reports alleged incidents that occurred many kilometres from the site in question.
The ABCC has not involved itself in these matters before the courts, which are also sub judice. Yet the federal IR Minister misused this issue publicly as a crude attempt to justify current government policy with respect to the ABCC.
It became widely understood at the Congress that ACTU officers had understandings with Ms Gillard before her address how union concerns about the ABCC and OHS national harmonisation question would be managed This included the Deputy Prime Minister meeting some families of building workers killed at work recently.
Minister Gillard’s pro-ABCC outburst about alleged activities (deemed as fact) involving one dispute, was highly provocative and seen by many as deliberate, premeditated and a breach of faith with ACTU officers.
It was amazing, after this stunt, for the Deputy Prime Minister then to suggest in conclusion: “we need a partnership with you [the trade union movement] to achieve a better nation”. Better sales pitches have been seen before!
In his reply ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence didn’t hide his anger. He repeated Congress’ determination to pursue a second wave of IR reform to deal with unfinished business in relation to the Fair Work Act, to make sure that OHS harmonisation is done to the highest level and that the ABCC had to go.
The Deputy Prime Minister left the stage in a huff, even refusing to shake Jeff Lawrence’s hand. She was followed by plainclothed ‘close personal protection’ federal police officers.
The Congress went on with its business.
Many important matters were addressed – including:
Decent Work Agenda, Work and Families, Retirement incomes, Vocational Educational and Training, OHS, Procurement, growing unions, young workers, a fair society, international campaigning, Health, tax and social security, democracy and participation, social inclusion and workforce participation.
There were other topics that highlighted the emerging contradiction about the principal way forward. These were – Using the legislation (ie the Fair Work Act) to campaign and grow; growing our unions; organising rights and the launch of the Growth and Campaign Plan specifically.
Some unions are intending to place a lot of faith and spend a lot of time and resources in exploring a way forward for their organisations via the Fair Work Act.
Of course, unions have to do this. Whatever the legislation (and we did so under 10 years of Howard’s laws) unions are bound to explore the legal IR framework of the day on behalf of their members. It’s always been so. But should that normal practice be the central strategy?
Surely the central strategy has to be rolling out an activist based campaign to achieve the real fair laws we fought for and were promised.
While the formal end of Howard’s WorkChoices is welcome and a great symbolic event (1/7/09), on any analysis the evidence shows the incoming Fair Work Act will not deliver “a fair workplace balance” in many circumstances. It will be an uphill climb. There will be many obstacles and pitfalls. Many commentators have already revealed that the Fair Work Act redefines the role of unions (with the repeated non-use of the conciliation and arbitration power and ongoing use of the corporations power). It maintains strict control of normal independent union activity, eg very limited rights to industrial action, strict almost unworkable ‘right of entry’ provisions, restrictions on what can be bargained about and virtually no access to industry-wide bargaining.
By illustration, industry-wide bargaining has always been the key way for unions to make their contribution to achieving “a better nation” over the decades. Long Service Leave, Superannuation, Annual Leave, Paid Maternity Leave for example, were all achieved by industry-wide bargaining and the employers who are pressuring Rudd and Gillard constantly, know it.
The union movement is not asking for IR legislation that will do their job for them. However we do not need laws that interfere and restrict unions from what they’ve been doing for over 100 years, meeting with and directly representing workers freely and fairly.
We should not accept the Deputy Prime Minister’s stated position that there will be no further IR reforms.
Unions will quickly test the proposition that there are “many positives’ for unions and workers in the new Act. The Telstra and Cochlear disputes will be good examples to watch.
Recently (8/5) the Deputy Prime Minister said she was unlikely to adopt recommendations from ALP Senators that the new Fair Work Act should be amended to enable substandard WorkChoices arrangements to be terminated.
She said in part: “…unfortunately all of the harm caused by the former Liberal government’s unfair and extreme WorkChoices laws cannot be undone overnight”.
We should take this at face value as a prima fácie admission the Fair Work Act in its current form is not the end of the matter.
An important exercise coming up for the union movement is the national ALP Conference (July/August 2009). It will be important for unions affiliated with ALP to do at least two things: Firstly, take forward into the ALP policy process an updated IR package for future new law based on the ACTU’s new Congress policy. Secondly, make sure that the federal ALP parliamentary wing does not interfere with the agreed policy platform. We must avoid what happened in 2007.
The issue of the Australian Building Construction Commission (ABCC) particularly grates within the union movement. The unity and determination around this issue is growing. The Deputy Prime Minister got this message loud and clear at the ACTU Congress.
The Prime Minister Rudd is also misreading this ‘deal breaking’ cause celebré.
It is now out there he gave undertaking pre November 2007 about this issue. His address to the ACTU Congress Dinner (3/6/09) was a classic example of “his emerging wall-of-sound technique” (Annabel Crabb Sunday Morning Herald 5/6). He harangued the gathering non-stop. Rudd did not stop for breath and pleaded his case as a social reformer. Safe ground compared with his Deputy Prime Minister’s provocative approach earlier in the day. He angled for his applause and got it by wishing for “a historic partnership for the future”.
The next day, when faced with his Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon falling on his sword, over breaching Ministerial Guidelines, Prime Minister Rudd was asked the usual journalist question: “Can Fitzgibbon come back to the Ministry?” Rudd said: “ I don’t agree with life sentences…”.
But Rudd had no such sympathy for potential Senate Candidate from Tasmania Kevin Harkins. Rudd had said the day before that Harkins had a ‘Buckley’s and none” chance of becoming a Senator. Harkins’ crime – back in 2005 he had held a meeting of ETU members in Tasmania, deemed later to be illegal under Howard’s IR Laws! So much for consistency about life sentences!
The government argues the union movement should concentrate on what it has been given, rather than other demands for future legislative change.
The Age Claimed (5/6), after the Congress, that “the ACTU is clearly out in the cold with this Labor Government”. The poor treatment of the ACTU started long before its Congress in Brisbane.
Last year the ACTU protested quite rightly in a letter to Rudd about there being no union representation on the important Henry Taxation Review. In contrast the employers via AIG’s Heather Riddout, is on the review, as she is on many other federal government bodies.
ACTU officers have also bent over backwards to echo government propaganda in order to earn ‘brownie points’. An example of this during the ACTU Congress was when a senior ACTU officer jumped on the bandwagon about going after Executive Salaries. CEO remuneration packages are fair game, but crude populism in the scheme of things. Placing limitations on them will not affect the Global Financial Crisis or generate one job, never mind move forward the real game – improving workers’ rights at work. Did the ACTU get a pat on the back anyway? No.
It’s important to remember the union movement puts workers first, not the ALP political machine. Working people voted first and foremost to get rid of Howard in 2007, not to put Rudd and Gillard in power. This point needs greater recognition.
Former ACTU leaders Martin Ferguson, Simon Crean and Greg Combet didn’t cover themselves in any glory by commenting negatively on the ACTU Congress proceedings. They know full well the continuing limitations and restrictions on collective bargaining and the ongoing discriminatory laws singling out building workers are an anathema to trade union principles. Yet they parrot the “false solidarity” Cabinet line as if they have a monopoly on the knowledge of what’s good for everyone.
To date the government has not established a “framework for fair transparent proceedings in the workplace” as it claims. There is nothing fair about the employers having continuing access to severely restrictive laws that impact on workers’ rights generally and how trade unions can represent them specifically.
The union movement does have a “ forward looking agenda”. It is to finally remove all of the shackles of Howard’s IR legacy that have the employers holding the upper hand. It is the complete neutralisation of what WorkChoices stood for and what they voted for. We definitely didn’t vote for ALP politicians to have the freedom to trade off IR expectations for other agendas.
On Monday 8/6/09 The Age newspaper ran an editorial entitled: “Gillard spells out the limits of union influence”. It acknowledged the historical fact that the labour movement’s political and industrial wings “worked together to oust the Howard government and its WorkChoices Laws”. It recorded the union movement as seeking a “second wave” (including industry wide pattern bargaining) of industrial relations reform and a push to scrap the “detested” ABCC.
The Age also described as a “remarkable sight, unthinkable…only 18 months ago” the Deputy Prime Minister being heckled for her anti-union stance at the ACTU Congress.
In reporting that some union officials are warning the ALP not to take workers’ support for granted at the next election, The Age Editorial went on to suggest “the union movement’s options are limited”. That is, what choice do unions have in terms of electoral allegiance? This is not the real question. In the practical realities of cyclical elections it is more pertinent to appreciate how working people are feeling at the time that counts. Any usual breakdown of union membership voting intentions is about 60:40 in favour of the ALP. This is often not enough for the ALP to win across the population. In 2007 this ratio went to approximately 70:30, because of the anti-Howard anti WorkChoices campaign. Enough to swamp the required marginal seats.
It is that mass enthusiastic participation that should not be taken for granted, not what union leaderships think. And if union structures are not out there doing their bit, sending the appropriate signals then anything can happen.
Government hubris is a dangerous thing.
yraw voting-badge
