A new study says that government schools are the clear “losers” from government funding of private schools over the past four decades.

It shows that government funding of private schools in Australia has increased socio-economic segregation between government and private schools and allowed private schools to improve school quality rather than reduce their fees.

Government funding of private schools has led to much higher concentrations of lower SES students in government schools.

This has widened the achievement gap between government and private schools and imposed much higher cost burdens on government schools.

As a result, the study says, government schools should receive higher funding per student than private schools.

The study also says that private schools will continue to use government funding to improve school quality by reducing student/teacher ratios and attract higher SES students away from government schools unless their funding is made conditional on regulation of fees and selection of students.

The study is published in the latest issue of the Australian Journal of Education. The authors are Dr. Louise Watson from the University of Canberra and Dr. Chris Ryan from the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University.

The study shows that government recurrent funding for private schools increased in real terms (that is, adjusted for inflation) from about $500 per Catholic secondary school student in the early 1970s to over $6000 in 2007 and from less than $1000 per Independent secondary student to about $5000 in 2007.

It demonstrates that private schools have used increased government funding to increase school quality by reducing student/teacher ratios rather than to reduce fees and open up their schools to students from low socio-economic status (SES) families.

School fees have continued to increase in real terms: Catholic school fees increased by 160% from the early 1970s to 2002 in real terms while Independent school fees increased by 70%.

These increases far exceeded increases in real income over the same period: per capital real household disposable income increased by 46% between 1972 and 2002 while real male average weekly earnings increased by 26%.

The additional resources available for private schools from increased government funding and fees allowed them to significantly improve student/teacher ratios.

In the early 1970s, there were about 23-24 students to every teacher in Catholic secondary schools; by 2007, it was less than 13 per teacher. The ratio for Independent secondary schools fell from over 14 to 10.5 students per teacher. The student/teacher ratio in government schools fell from 15 to just over 12 over the same period.

The improvement in student/teacher ratios in private schools has been much greater than in government schools.

The student/teacher ratio in Catholic secondary schools as a proportion of the government school student/teacher ratio fell from about 1.4 to 1.0 in 2008. The Independent school proportion relative to government schools fell from 1.1 to less than 0.9.

The study shows a strong relationship between the relative improvement in private school student/teacher ratios relative to government schools and their increasing share of total enrolments.

Improving student/teacher ratios enabled by government funding and fee increases has been a factor in the shift in enrolments to private schools since the early 1980s.

The study also shows that increasing school fees have ensured that it is mainly higher SES families that have been able to take advantage of the improvement in private school quality.

The students who transferred from government to private schools between 1975 and 2006 tended to be from the middle to the top SES families. About 60% of the decline in government school enrolments over the period was from the top half of the SES distribution.

Those who transferred were from above-average SES families relative to the 1975 government school population, but below the average SES of the 1975 private school population.

This meant that while the average SES of students in government schools fell between 1975 and 2006, the average SES of private school students also fell by more than for government schools.

However, the average SES of both Catholic and Independent schools remained significantly higher than that of government schools in 2006.

The transfer of higher SES students to private schools has significantly changed the socio-economic composition of government secondary schools.

In contrast to 1975, the majority of students in government secondary schools in 2006 attended schools whose SES is below average. Moreover, the proportion of government secondary schools with concentrations of low SES students increased between 1975 and 2006.

In 1975, there were two more common types of government secondary schools: one with students from SES backgrounds well below the average of the community and one with students whose SES was above average. In 2006, government schools with above average SES were less common. Indeed, the average SES of the ‘high’ SES-type government schools was below the average SES of the community.

The study draws two significant implications for education policy from its findings.

First, a widening of student achievement between government and private schools can be expected because of the lower average SES of students in the government sector.

It is a well-established research finding that student SES has a significant impact on educational attainment. As lower SES students now make up a higher proportion of government school enrolments average achievement levels in government schools can be expected to be lower than in private schools.

Further, the higher concentrations of low SES students in government schools can be expected add more downward pressure on student achievement.

A second implication is that this trend can be expected to increase costs per student in the government sector. It means that the cost of educating a government school student to an agreed standard will always be higher than in a private school.

Government school systems also bear the additional costs of taking all students regardless of background and supporting small schools in rural areas.

As result, the study recommends that government schools should be funded at a higher level per student than private schools.

…when governments set funding benchmarks for all schools, they should expect private schools to operate effectively at a lower level of resources per student than private schools. This is a reasonable assumption as long as private schools enrol a smaller proportion of low SES students than public schools and are free of any expectations regarding universal provision. [p.104]

The study also suggests that strong government regulation of fees and enrolments in private schools should be minimum requirements in any funding system aiming to expand educational opportunities by supporting private school choice.

Trevor Cobbold National Convenor
26 July 2010

The publication details of the study are as follows:

Watson, L. & Ryan, C 2010. Choosers and Losers: The Impact of Government Subsidies on Australian Secondary Schools. Australian Journal of Education, 54 (1): 86-107.

SOS – Fighting for Equity in Education

http://www.saveourschools.com.au

Your rights at work

Enterprise bargaining UNSW style against the union, the NTEU.

This also involves ADFA, ACT.

http://www.nteu.org.au/unsw/blog/view/post/postId/367

Please support some 70 academic and general staff who have been stood down without pay by UNSW VC Fred Hilmer for imposing bans on the recording and transmission of student results to the university.

Contribute to the special UNSW Local Hardship Fund.

Click this link to donate directly

https://www.nteu.org.au/shop_tools/donations/unsw

Posted 13 July 2010 by Ros O’Grady from University of New South Wales.

These protected action bans were necessary to get the VC to negotiate over long-contested conditions, on reinstating limits on fixed tern employment and the return of members to have union representation.

Negotiations are continuing.

The UNSW Student Representative Council organised a protest to support NTEU staff.

The CFMEU and other unions have declared support.

yraw voting-badge

Workplace safety on Australian waterfronts must be overhauled to stem the mounting death toll among stevedoring workers.

Three deaths and a spate of serious injuries and near misses in a little over six months is not good enough and suggests that waterfront deregulation has reduced safety, said ACTU President Ged Kearney.

At memorial services today, unions around Australia are joining their colleagues in the Maritime Union of Australia in remembering the waterside workers who have been killed on the job in recent years.

The most recent death is that of Stephen Piper, who was killed in a work accident on Melbourne’s Appleton Dock on 14 July. His funeral service is being held today.

Ms Kearney said the waterfront remained one of the most dangerous workplaces in Australia, despite major productivity improvements.

“The growing death toll among stevedoring workers – eight in the past seven years – has to be stopped,” Ms Kearney said.

Australia’s wharves are busier than ever yet there are weaknesses in the underlying safety culture of the industry that stem in part from the deregulation of stevedoring that occurred during the Howard Government years.

“Deregulation and casualisation of the stevedoring workforce has had an impact on skill levels and training, competency standards, and the way work is structured.

“Maritime workers report that there is also inconsistency of approaches to safety management and safety practice.”

Ms Kearney said the ACTU backed the MUA’s call for an urgent and high-level national stevedoring safety task force to investigate what needs to be done to improve waterfront safety.

“Every worker should be able to go to work at the beginning of the day secure in the knowledge that they will return to their family unscathed,” Ms Kearney said.

“We need to lift workplace health and safety standards for all workers, not reduce them.”

Also:

NSW Premier Kristina Keneally today expressed deep sorrow over the death of wharfie Stephen Piper and the awful statistic of 3 deaths on Australian wharves in 5 months.

Speaking before nearly 400 maritime workers, their families, friends and dignitaries, Ms Keneally, also pledged her support – and the NSW Government’s – to the Maritime Union’s campaign to achieve consistent safety guidelines and regulations right across the country.

The Premier was visibly moved as Mich-Elle Myers read the email written by Fremantle wharfie Ash Huish, the message encapsulated in

“No family should sit and wait at the end of the working day for a loved one who never returns”.

Ash’s words were recited at every service around the country.

Unions leant their support headed by Unions NSW’s Secretary Mark Lennon.

Wharfies and their families held up banners with the faces of 8 workers killed on the wharves in less than 10 years.

One of those bore the smiling face of Nick Fanos, crushed to death at Port Botany in April. Nick’s sister Maria bravely held up his banner.

Later Sister Mary Leahy of Apostleship of the Sea offered comfort for those grieving.

The Sydney service was repeated across the country, lead by the highly emotional and dignified funeral in the Boyd Chapel, Springvale in Melbourne.

National Secretary Paddy Crumlin said that the church service was a celebration of the wonderful life of a loving dad and husband.

“It was about family and friends from the wharves and all walks of life. They paid homage to the joyful and generous character that was Steven Piper”, said Crumlin.

A full service could not hold some 200 wharfies who gathered outside the church.

The mourners included ACTU President Ged Kearney and former National Secretary John Coombs, arm in arm with his wife Gwen.

Kearney subsequently sent out a press release calling for “workplace safety on Australian waterfronts to be overhauled to stem the mounting death toll among stevedoring workers”.

Close to 1000 workers attended the Fremantle service led by a number of politicians including the leader of the opposition Eric Ripper, ALP Canning candidate, Alannah McTiernan and Fremantle Federal MP Melissa Page, as well as reassuring words from Father Patrick Moore of the Stella Maris Seafarers Centre.

“There was a lot of sorrow and just as much anger from workers. There was a feeling that everyone has had enough, that we can’t wait for this to happen again”, said West Australian Branch Secretary Chris Cain.

Even on a public holiday in Darwin 60 wharfies attended a service that ended in a wreath floating in the sea off Stokes Hill wharf.

In Brisbane the ALP candidate for Wright Andrew Ramsay was among the mourners. We will add more stories on the Brisbane and other services as they come to hand.

Read more
http://www.mua.org.au/

yraw voting-badge

Statement of the SEARCH Foundation Committee, July 21, 2010

The best outcome from the high-stakes federal election campaign now underway would be the return of a Labor government with the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate, and perhaps making a breakthrough into the House of Representatives.

It is vital that the Abbott Coalition – which is essentially a more extreme version of the Howard brand of patriarchal neo-liberalism – is soundly defeated and forced to abandon its extremism.

Not only would this be the right kind of criticism of both major parties by the voters, but it would take national politics in a progressive direction and enable a faster transition to a low carbon economy than is likely at present.

In the last parliament, despite the general preference swap between Labor and the Greens at the 2007 election, when Green preferences were crucial to the defeat of the Howard conservatives, Rudd Labor studiously marginalised the Greens. The Labor government much preferred to find a Senate majority with the Liberals, Nationals and rightwing independents, contributing in particular to the calamity over the policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Labor’s disdain towards its supporters risks alienating them and shifting support to the conservative Coalition – a pattern so clearly shown by UK Labour. The risk of electing the most rightwing Coalition leadership seen in Australia in many years should not be underestimated. An Abbott Coalition government would be a disaster of historic proportions.

An emphatic voter shift to the Greens rather than the Abbott Coalition will provide the best insurance that a Gillard Labor government won’t repeat this rightwing approach to the constituencies which support the progressive movements in Australia in the new parliament.

Despite the current picture with opinion polls putting Labor in front, the campaign up to August 21 could have some nasty surprises for Labor, because its first-term record is tainted, and because it is not speaking clearly to the people about what it would do in a second term.

The trial of union activist Ark Tribe in Adelaide, for refusing to answer the interrogators from the Australian Building and Construction Commission, could lead to one of these ‘surprises’. The report on the schools building stimulus package could be another.

For now, voters are presented on the one hand with the Abbott Coalition, which is playing up fear of asylum seekers, and fear of government debt, without putting any clear program forward; and on the other with Gillard Labor in a policy vacuum called ‘moving forward’.

This cynical dumbing-down of the campaign will react on both parties, and the hope is that strong progressive voices can shift more votes to the Greens.

Prime Minister Gillard is right – Australia can face any challenge if the society works together, but why won’t she and her Ministers speak out clearly about the challenges? Because they don’t want to be held accountable in the coming three years?

What are the challenges?

The first challenge is at the moral level – respecting the rights of the first Australians, the indigenous peoples of the land, and compensating them for the loss of their lands and culture. This should mean a rejection of the authoritarian policy of the Northern Territory Intervention, and a renewal of the people’s movement for reconciliation which created real possibilities in the 1990s, only to be cut off by the Howard government and largely ignored by the Rudd Labor government.

Clearly the global capitalist crisis is continuing to unfold, rather than fade away, with the ‘double-dip’ recession now looming in the USA and Europe. There is a huge challenge for the next government to keep people in work, and to push for the new low-carbon, fair society which is urgently needed. This requires much more refurbishing of existing dwellings and commercial buildings, as well as radical shifts in investment in the energy and transport sectors. This has to be led by government, and needs a mobilised people’s movement to push it through, with all the education and training, child-care support, public and affordable housing, fair workplace systems and changed taxation needed to support it.

To meet the challenge of climate change, there is an urgent need to put a price on carbon emissions and to implement other measures to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.

Despite the Labor government’s real success with stimulus spending, Prime Minister Gillard says she ‘believes in surpluses’ as if it’s some article of religious faith. The facts are that Australia’s public debt and budget deficit are small by world standards and should not even be issues in the campaign. Australia’s federal government debt in 2009 was 8.9 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. In contrast, the USA is 53.1 per cent, the UK is 75.1 per cent, France is 60.8 per cent, and Germany 43.8 per cent. Greece stands at 125.7 per cent, and Italy at 106.6 per cent. The latest figure for Japan is from 2008, when its central government debt stood at 178 per cent of GDP. The Abbott attack on government spending is dangerous as well as absurd. The Left must tackle this economic debate head-on.

Another major challenge is the global security crisis, where the ‘war on terror’ so blindly prosecuted by the Howard and Rudd governments at the behest of Washington, has catastrophically failed. A new policy is urgently needed to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, help the democratic movement in Iran and increase pressure on the Israeli government to respect the human and national rights of the Palestinian people. The Afghan War is not ‘winnable’, costing civilian and military lives every day, and forcing more and more people to flee as refugees.

Our major river systems are in crisis due to over-demands by irrigators, as demonstrated by the failure of any water from two flood events in the Murray-Darling Basin to reach the Murray mouth. The ‘market’ approach to this crisis has also failed and needs radical change based on community involvement, not corporate dictat.

While Labor’s reforms to the industrial laws have been positive, removing the worst features of Work Choices, much remains to be done – including the abolition of the punitive Australian Building & Construction Commission – to achieve a balanced system in which international norms of workers’ rights and standards are recognised.

Abbott’s Shadow Cabinet has, at its kernel, those who pushed the policies of the Howard Government and who were rejected by the electorate in 2007. These include Kevin Andrews, Phillip Ruddock and Bronwyn Bishop. No matter how Abbott evades and denies the issue, a return to those days is foremost on their agenda. He says Work Choices is “dead buried, cremated” but, like Phoenix, it would rise from the ashes if somehow the Coalition wins.

Australia’s Howard government signed up to the Millennium Development Goals back in 2000, aiming to significantly reduce global poverty by 2015. These goals will not be achieved, but it is a vital part of global security and Australia’s future well-being, that this effort is renewed. This requires Australia to move up its official overseas aid budget to 0.7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, and to embrace its obligations under the UN Refugee Convention to properly process the claims for protection from all asylum seekers who reach our territory. On this we know the stand taken by Abbott’s Coalition, Gillard Labor and the Greens.

In the four weeks left of the election campaign, community organisations and trade unions need to work to ensure that these challenges are discussed and that Labor, the Greens and the Coalition spell out their policies on them.

Whether or not the parties take any notice of the community on these issues, the organisations and networks trying to respond to these challenges will be better mobilised and educated if this effort is made, and thus more capable of engaging with the new government after August 21.

Democracy is definitely much more than casting a vote every three years, though casting the vote as intelligently as we can is a precious capacity won by our forebears that we cannot afford to waste.

Peter Murphy
Coordinator
SEARCH Foundation
www.search.org.au

yraw voting-badge

Since the early 1970′s OHS law has been “de-lawyer-fied”.

The intention of the law is to empower workers and employers to manage safety in the workplace to meet basic human rights – the right not to be injured at work, the obligation not to hurt others.

Good law allows for the basic legislative tenets to be readily understood. Poor law is difficult to understand and leads to increased business and personal costs in order to determine compliance.

I would argue that Australia’s recent aim of the national harmonisation of OHS laws will lead to complexity and cost – the opposite of what was intended – and a disempowerment of the workforce as the legal imperative overrides the safety management obligation.

The major weakness in the law is its seeming reliance on the Courts to clarify the laws, their application and their relevance.

Legal commentators on the laws have stated publicly that the impact of the law will not be clear for several years and that many questions about the laws will only be answered when prosecutions are brought and the Courts hand down decisions.

This process is sloppy, should not be accepted unquestionably by OHS professionals and does almost nothing to help the vast majority of Australian businesses to comply.

The argument is that the laws will not change but be harmonised. The fact is that in some States, the laws will change and change for businesses that have no trans-boundary operations.

OHS laws, enforcement strategies and impacts in Australia would benefit from a review similar to that undertaken by Thomas McGarity and others at the University of Marylands School of Law, as reported in the Regulation At Work newsletter. According to the newsletter:

“The authors suggest that regulatory dysfunction stems from the agency [US-OSHA] being starved of resources, operating under a statute weakened by 30 years of appellate court decisions and White House initiatives that increase time and effort needed to implement a proactive regulatory agenda.”

There are distinct similarities with OHS enforcement and regulation in Australia.

http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/ohs-law-reform-should-not-rely-of-courts-for-clarification/

Bolivia’s UN ambassador, Pablo Solón, gave this talk to the Shout Out for Global Justice, sponsored by the Council of Canadians and attended by nearly 3,000 people on June 25 in Toronto, during the ten days of protests against the G20 meeting.

Other speakers included Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians and Indian eco-feminist Vandana Shiva. Video of the event can be viewed at rabbletv.

Read more

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/390.php#continue

right to strike on the environment

They will keep Gillard’s Fair Work Act ‘that is not bad’, but with ‘tweaking’.

The ruling corporations and employer organisations know major sections of WorkChoices remain in the Fair Work Act.

Gillard and Crean promise no changes to the Fair Work Act.

Australian workers campaigned for Our Rights at Work. But as this blog shows, citing ACTU submissions, the Fair Work Act fails to deliver what was wanted for new legal effective rights.

WorkChoices has not disappeared, in the real world of industrial relations and laboor law.

This spin of the 2010 election is like Orwell’s 1984.

Abbott and Abetz are targeted on their lies by unions. See ACTU press releases below.

As well, union activists are campaigning amongst union members in marginal seats in a strong anti-Abott push.

We see Abetz committing to not change the Fair Work Act.

This is unbelieveable in the face of demands by the corporates and their associations the BCA, Minerals Council, Mines and metals, AIG, MBA etc.

But Abetz admits ‘tweaking’.

Such as by regulation!

Regulations avoids Parliament.

Here is one example amongst hundreds.

Howard under WorkChoices had repressive anti-union ‘prohibited content’ regulations.

These extensive regulations banned unions and employers from agreement on many issues that these parties wanted to agree on.

These regulations were a severe breach of free collective bargaining.

Employers were forbidden to agree in collective enterprise bargaining to long-established rights.

One right forbidden was trade union training leave.

Union training is back under the Fair Work Act – see earlier blogs.

Abetz with his legal corporate lawyers will “tweak” regulations to continue making employees active in their unions ineffective and bias employers.

Prohibition by regulation severely legally restricted the ability for unions facing hostile management to disorganise.

WorkChoices’ essential anti-union thrust can be reintroduced as tweaks by the right-wing zealot Abetz – no doubt.

In the anti-Abott campaigning, unions promote the principles of a good industrial relations system.

The legislative framework has to be an advance of a labour law for the legal protection of collective rights for workers to effectively campaign for our economic, social and political interests.

Yet has Gillard a ‘way forward’ for workers’ rights?

Only minimally.

On the merits of industrial relations policy reform, the Greens have to be supported – at the local, regional and national level – and specifically in the Senate.

Here in Canberra, Lin Hatfield Dodds is the Greens candidate for one of the two ACT Senate positions.

The popular Labor Senator Kate Lundy Canberra will be returned comfortably.

Canberra has to reject the incumbent Liberal Senator Garry Humphries – in the past it was close. We shall see this time.

Abbott and Abetz are targeted on their lies by unions.

ACTU Your Rights at Work

Coalition and WorkChoices pose big risks to jobs and Australia’s economic recovery

15 July, 2010
The biggest clouds on the horizon for working Australians are Tony Abbott’s plans to change the economic policy directions of the country and bring back the worst aspects of WorkChoices.

Australia’s economy is outperforming the rest of the developed world because of good management by the Labor Government and industrial stability from the Fair Work Act, but this would all be put at risk by the Coalition, said ACTU President Ged Kearney.

Ms Kearney said more than 350,000 jobs were created over the past year, coinciding with the end of WorkChoices, and another 475,000 were forecast over the next two years.

But the reintroduction of WorkChoices and savage cuts to public services and infrastructure investment under the Coalition would jeopardise all that, Ms Kearney said.

She said the Labor Government’s economic record was in stark contrast to the Coalition’s plans.

“Last year as the Global Financial Crisis threatened Australia, the Government took tough decisions that protected jobs and set a platform for the recovery,” Ms Kearney said.

“Yesterday’s updated economic statement from Treasury gives working Australians cause for optimism for the next few years.

“The Labor Government’s Budget provides for investment in national infrastructure, skills and training, productivity and participation, better healthcare, and long-term improvements to national savings.

“Australia’s public debt is lower than almost all developed economies, and the Budget will be back in surplus within three years.

“The Liberal alternative would hurt working families.

“Tony Abbott opposes measures to stimulate the economy, will cut jobs and public services and is refusing to increase superannuation.

The Liberals will also abandon the National Broadband Network and wind back other key infrastructure projects.

“His main economic policy is to bring back WorkChoices by another name.”

Rights for working Australians is key issue for 2010 election
17 July, 2010 | Media Release This federal election is about the rights of all working Australians and the threat of a future return to WorkChoices under the Coalition, say unions.

Australian unions welcome the announcement today by Prime Minister Julia Gillard of a federal election on August 21, said ACTU President Ged Kearney.

Ms Kearney said the 2010 election will be a referendum on the rights of people to have job security and decent working conditions.

“In this election working Australians have a clear choice between the Coalition which brought in WorkChoices and Labor which restored rights and protected jobs during the Global Financial Crisis.

“Unions will be campaigning in the election to ensure working Australians know the facts about the Coalition’s record of attacking workers’ rights and putting jobs and services for working families at risk.

“Australia’s economy is the best-performing in the developed world and 1000 new jobs a week have been created since the end of WorkChoices and the introduction of Labor’s Fair Work laws.

“Real wages have grown with low paid workers gaining a $26 a week pay increase and productivity is almost four times higher than under the Liberals’ last year in government.

“The Labor Government deserves credit for making a very solid start considering the difficulties of the GFC and working Australians and unions will expect more from its next term.

“The election of a Tony Abbott government will hurt working families.

“The Coalition opposes stimulus measures that are protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs and will cut government funding for jobs, infrastructure and important health and education services that families rely upon.

“The Coalition will abandon the National Broadband Network and other infrastructure projects and skills programs that are essential to drive national productivity.

“Workers will also be denied financial security in retirement by the Coalition’s refusal to support Labor’s move to increase national superannuation to 12%,” said Ms Kearney.

http://www.actu.org.au

yraw voting-badge

Socialist Project

The massive police presence in Toronto over this week has been officially
justified on the basis of protecting the leaders of the G8 and G20 countries meeting in Huntsville and Toronto.

We were told that the creation of the fenced-in fortress, the massive mobilization of police (estimates ranging from 10-20,000) from across Canada, and even the passing of a
secret law on policing (by the executive of the Ontario government without
reference to the Legislative Assembly and the opposition parties) that made it a crime to appear within five metres of the security fence would protect our right to protest as well.

This is not what has unfolded in Toronto over the weekend.

Thousands of protesters marched peacefully on Friday, challenging the purpose and agenda of the G20, although completely hemmed on all sides by
thousands of heavily armed police over the entire march (and severely hampering the freedom of assembly).

On Saturday, in the midst of a larger
demonstration (estimated at between 10-25,000), organized by the labour, anti-privatization and peace movements, a series of unwarranted acts of
vandalism by a small number of protesters against stores, vehicles and buildings, was used as an excuse for a massive unleashing of repression and attacks by police against the democratic rights of both protestors, and
Torontonians as a whole.

(Like what happened at the Montebello Summit of
North American leaders in August 2007, it will come out over the next weeks
how widely the police had infiltrated some of the key groups — especially the so-called Black Bloc, knew the planning and participated as agent
provocateurs.)

Click here to continue reading:
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/377.php#continue

joe hill

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2010/06/legacy-rudd-labor-and-challenge.html

first join a union