I add an observation on the political debate.Orwellian 1984 labour laws
Many unionists regarded labour law under WorkChoices was an Orwellian 1984 workplace world, where opposites of what politicians said apply.
‘Doublethink’ was one 1984 device.
‘Doublethink’ is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ‘Doublethink’ involves the forgetting of any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, drawing it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed. This denies the existence of objective reality and all the while taking account of that reality which one denies. Politicians will be familiar with this experience.
One use of ‘doublethink’ is to label justifiable union organising which is not unlawful, or to be more specific, which is lawful, to be deemed by political opponents as ‘inappropriate’. Legislative changes are pushed (here by PM Howard and maintained by Rudd) which transforms that which is ‘inappropriate’ into that which is ‘unlawful’.
Through the interplay of ‘unlawful’ and’ inappropriate’ the vice of doublethink is played out. That which is lawful is unlawful. Or at other times the interplay of ‘permissible and not permissible’ and applies to ‘protected/unprotected’ action and so on applied to all legitimate industrial action.
I contend this ‘doublethink’ applies again with the Fair Work Act (2009) – albeit in a different form.
A new ‘1984 doublethink political spin’ that ‘WorkChoices is dead’ and the Fair Work Act (2009) establishes ‘the right to strike’ and ‘fair rights for workers’ and a ‘fair balance for all’.
I now argue The right to strike as a human right and a democratic right
Unions assert morally that government and employer suppression of the right to strike has abused human rights. As a human right not to be abused and punished for going on strike, it is argued to protect the individual worker’s dignity.
Legitimate positions are promoted for justification, such as the ‘dignity of labour’, that ‘labour is not a commodity’, workers are ‘not to be forced labour’ but are ‘free and not slaves’.
It is not often that a Republican President of the United States can be cited, in this case Eisenhower:
‘The right of workers to leave their jobs is a test of freedom. Hitler suppressed strikes. Stalin suppressed strikes. But each also suppressed freedom. There are some things worse than strikes, much worse than strikes — one of them is the loss of freedom.’
In 1970, Clyde Cameron (who became the Labour Minister under the Labor PM Whitlam government) commented:
‘Eisenhower was correct in pointing out that the hallmark of the Police State is the loss of the right to strike. A worker’s right to strike is surely a basic human right. The right to withdraw labour is the one thing that distinguishes a free worker from the slave. This is a fundamental freedom.’
Although unions assert the right to strike is a human right, in Australia this is a moral right, not a legal right. In other systems, such as Europe, there are entrenched Human Rights laws. At least these countries enact labour laws based Human Rights, including a form of the right to strike, Novitz (2003). Australia is yet to have strong human rights laws or a Bill of Rights.
I adopt Ewing’s (2004) arguments where human rights law joins international labour law. The right to strike as a human right has interesting features.
A human right is inalienable in that it cannot be abrogated by the state or by individuals.
Human rights are indivisible and often unequivocal. The state has to support the exercise of human rights.
Although an individual human right, the right to strike is exercised in combination. Individuals organising collectively are fully protected. Apart from losing wages, no other penalties can be imposed.
No strike is a breach of the individual’s contract. As a human right to be effective, the union organisers and the union organisation are not subject to fines and the common law of tort.
As a human right solidarity strikes are protected as human rights law overrides competition law.
As a human right, the scope is wider than collective bargaining on work issues. Workers determine the purpose of the strike. It is the conduct that the right protects and the purpose is not restricted. You cannot be dismissed on a protest strike to express your political view. It can be used to respond to political attacks on workers’ industrial rights and be used to politically promote other human rights and to oppose exploitation and oppression.
‘If the right to strike is a human right workers must be free to determine the causes they will promote by using it, just in the same way that we do not censor the purposes that may be promoted by the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly. People are free to exercise their human right to peacefully assembly by marching through the streets to demonstrate their opposition to the invasion of another country or anti trade union legislation. Why should they not also be free to exercise their human right to strike to promote the same ends by staying at home, or in order to reinforce the protest? It is not for the State to determine the causes which may be promoted in this way.’ Ewing (2004).
Justifications on human rights underpin but are deeper than on principles of a collective bargaining system where the strike is as an economic weapon, an industrial sanction, as a means of enforcing a right or a demand for an improved employment right.
We deepen the justification for the right to strike beyond the collective bargaining means to that based on democracy.
The right to strike is strengthened when based on principles of democratic rights, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom to express and communicate political opinion and civil liberties’ theories.
The democratic principles afford the firewall protection to legitimate strikes e.g. for short political protests, environmental action etc. See my arguments in my papers on the right for the political protest strike. written july 1. More soon…
Right to strike
No comments yet.