Humphrey McQueen will publish a broad brush history of the Federation in April next year, titled We Built This Country, builders’ labourers and their unions, 1780s to the future (Ginninderra Press). This chapter is circulated to celebrate the centenary.

Chapter seven
ORIGINS
1900 to 1910

By 1902, brick production in NSW had returned to the level before the depression. Eastern Australia, however, was suffering the worst drought on record.

In 1901, the colonies had federated to strengthen the reach of the British imperialists.

That political change led to a nation-wide re-organisation of the labour movement.

In particular, the 1907 basic wage judgement saw unions line up to get a hearing from the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.

Nothing could put an end to industrial disputes. Judges gaoled men for striking. Socialists helped the working class to understand why. Builders’ labourers were in the front line of these struggles as they moved towards federating in 1910.

Victoria
During 1904-05, the brawling between builders’ labourers from Melbourne and Richmond ‘became more bitter than ever’. The lodges refused ‘to recognise each other as unionists’.

The employers brought them together by cutting wages for navvies. The ‘lads on top took exception to this, and struck the job’. After the contractors brought in scabs. The bricklayers ‘again stood solid and refused to start’. After a day-and-a-half, ‘the most bitter of the employers’ gave in. Unity between navvies and tradesmen had brought ‘another win for the labourers’.

Building unions voted to strike from 25 October 1906 for a 44-hour week.

The Painters, Plumbers, Masons and Plasterers then backed away. That left the Bricklayers, Carpenters and Labourers to push on.

The employers rushed brick work to ride out the dispute. Officials from the Labourers Union talked the Plasterers into rejoining the battle. Once the four unions struck: ‘The solidarity and determination displayed by the men was wonderful, very few blacklegged’.

The organisation and discipline surprised the contractors. The Employers’ Federation stopped supplies to any master who gave into the union demands.

Foundation ABLF secretary Henry Hannah recalled that the bosses ‘showed us the way we should go’ – abolish craft divisions.

Nonetheless, the men returned on the old terms to wait until Judge Cussen examined their case.

Although he refused a 44-hour week across the trades, the labourers did secure the 8-hour day.

The BLU struck an 8-8-8 medal, with the motto ‘Lest We Forget’, joining the eight-hours procession on 21 April 1907.

The biggest win was payment a twenty percent loading to make up for lost time.

In addition, Cussen set overtime rates, with double time for Sundays, and for seven public holidays.

Following this strike, Dick Loughnan moved from Richmond to become unpaid BLU secretary. He had twenty members on the books and three shillings and threepence in funds. The union revived, attracting 200 members.

By the time Henry Hannah took over in December 1909, he faced debts of ₤40.

The union had broken apart into five lodges – Melbourne, Richmond, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo. During July 1910, relations were on the mend. Melbourne accepted Geelong into the fold, although its members were being paid only eight shillings a day. United action soon won them the additional shilling.

New South Wales
Around Sydney, suburban loyalties seemed secondary. There, the split was between navvies and tradesmen’s assistants.

The United Labourers’ Protective Society (ULPS) was one of the few working-class organisations to keep going throughout the 1890s. It even paid benefits.

Then, its membership shot up from 1,300 in 1902 to 2,275 by 1904. A majority of them were from the less skilled who had been allowed to join since 1897.

The labourers who assisted tradesmen broke away during 1901 to form the Builders’ Labourers’ Union (BLU). The new body registered its 120 members with the NSW Industrial Court on 6 March 1902.

The secretary of the United Labourers’ Union later explained the split as ‘a personal grievance. They couldn’t all be secretaries, and they couldn’t all be treasurers’. In the past, the registration of a society for one group of workers had no effect on another body. Industrial arbitration changed that.

The state now decided which organisation could represent which workers. Hence, granting coverage to one union rather than another became part of keeping the industrial peace.

The outcome was often greater conflict. The ULPS adopted two tactics against its rival.

The first was to lock the BLU out as an organisation by having it deregistered. In April 1902, the Society told that the Trades Hall to choose between them.

The second step was to win back the tradesmen’s assistants. The ULPS pressed for a pay increase, and gave each grade of labour control over its claims for wages and conditions.

During the second half of 1905, all the building unions struggled to restore union rates on government contracts.

The ULPS accused the BLU of working for less. Later in the year, the BLU altered its rules to match ULPS rates. The ULPS noted that a conference to bring them together ‘passed off very well considering the parties were so hostile to each other in the past’. That goodwill did not last. The BLU insisted that the ULPS allow it to join the Labor Council. With that connection, ‘we would then be better able to support each other as no doubt the bosses will try to play one union off against the other if any trouble arises’.

The ULPS repeated that it covered ‘all sections, the builders’ labourers included’. By 1906, any chance of good relations had passed. (The ULPS merged with the AWU in 1941.)

The BLU welcomed all labourers on building sites, not just the tradesmen’s assistants. Nonetheless, most navvies stayed with other unions. The BLU met the MBA in 1907 to alter classifications. The union wanted all builders’ labourers to get nine shillings a day. The employers accepted that rate for hod-carriers, who were in short supply. Beyond that, they ‘could not see their way clear’.

The NSW Masters
In 1901, the NSW MBA laid out what its members did not like: first, relief for the unemployed; secondly, a minimum wage; and thirdly, the loss of contracts because the government hired its own labour on public works. T

he new century threatened more of the same when a progressive administration passed a new Arbitration Act. The MBA blamed the court ‘for good deal of unrest. The operatives, from the youth driving a tip cart to the experienced joiner, have all sought the peas which it was wrongly expected the Act would give’.

Nonetheless, the MBA used the Court to discipline its own. Thus, late in 1902, the Master Builders took the Master Painters to the court for agreeing to a 44-hour week. That cut undermined the 48-hours set by the Awards.

Arbitration helped the Masters in other ways. Its wage-fixing underwrote their price-fixing. One operator claimed that his workers were sub-contractors. The major builders resented such speculators who paid below the award on ‘labour-only contracts’, while their hod-carriers worked at piece rates. In 1909, the BLU had this system outlawed. Henceforth, the Masters could not be under-bid. On the other hand, the 1911 Royal Commission into Government Contracts outraged the Master Builders. The Commissioner attacked their trade discounts as ‘Illegal Commissions’. The MBA excused its corrupt practices as ‘universal and world-wide, and should be openly recognised’.

Faced with a federation of the Sydney building unions, the MBA’s 1908 Report stressed that employers had ‘to be strongly organized’. (Emphasis in original.) During 1909, wages rose to a shilling an hour for unskilled labourers.

The MBA warned: ‘If the public is not prepared to pay the increase, the capitalist will direct his money into other channels’.

Messrs Moneybags must chase the average rate of profit.

Federating
The NSW BLU voted on 5 July 1910 to join forces with builders’ labourers in other States. A week later, the Labourers’ Society in South Australia invited NSW to join a federation. By 19 July, NSW had drafted a constitution. Brisbane soon signed on. Victoria held back until Queensland secretary

Ted Jones went down to Melbourne. Had someone planted the seed? Activists got to know each other as they moved between cities chasing work. For instance, NSW secretary Jack Millard had been in Victoria during the 1906-07 strike and the Queensland president, William Muller, returned from Sydney in January 1910.

Four State unions federated on 9 September 1910 in the Melbourne Trades Hall. On 29 November, a Hobart union formed itself into a branch of the Federation. (West Australia joined in 1966.)

The new body registered with the Commonwealth Court on 23 January 1911. Electing a Victorian, Henry Hannah, as federal secretary made sense because Melbourne was the seat of the Federal government. He could stay in touch with Labor ministers, department officers and the Commonwealth Court. The branches kept Melbourne informed by telegram.

The BLs put their Federation together under fire.

All five Branches were on strike during the early months. The new body had no structures before the Federal Council met early in February 1911. By then, it had had to cope with a Queensland upsurge.

Just this year we negotiated a world-first nation wide agreement with the anti-union company FedEx.

It’s important we stand together, not just at home, but in other countries.

Because some multinational companies take advantage of foreign labour laws and treat transport workers with no respect at all.

In Turkey, an organising drive led by road tranport union TÜMTIS, has been met with aggression from bosses towards UPS drivers. 157 pro-union workers have been sacked in recent months, others harassed, and shots have been fired at a picket line.

There are drivers getting their pay docked for stopping for a toilet break and drivers being forced on the road all day and all night.

These pressures lead to unsafe working practices and deaths on the roads.

The International Transport Federation held rallies yesterday around the world, and TWU members and Federal Secretary Tony Sheldon showed their support with ITF president Paddy Crumlin at the Sydney rally.

A second day of action is planned for September 15, we’ll let you know how you can show your support in the coming weeks.

With your support we will keep holding bosses of multinational companies, like UPS, accountable at home and abroad.
Kind regards,
Michael Kaine
P.s. You can read more about their rally here:
http://www.twu.com.au/national_news/UNIONS_TO_SEND_A_MESSAGE_TO_UPS.shtml

yraw voting-badge

NGURRU-MILMARRAMIRIW / WRONG SKIN
THE CHOOKY DANCERS

CREATED BY NIGEL JAMIESON

IN ASSOCIATION WITH GAVIN ROBINS, JOSHUA BOND, ELCHO ISLAND’S CHOOKY DANCERS AND COMMUNITY ELDERS

“A MUSIC-DANCE-THEATRE EXTRAVAGANZA…THE ENTERTAINMENT METER HIT THE ROOF” THE ADELAIDE ADVERTISER

From the broken asphalt of the open-air Galiwinku Saturday Night Disco, the teenage Chooky Dancers of Elcho Island captured 1.4 million YouTube fans worldwide with their exuberant interpretation of Zorba the Greek.

Just off the coast of Arnhem Land, Elcho Island is a remote Northern Territory community of little more than 2,000 where the majority of islanders are under 21- yet their Yolngu culture is connecting profoundly with peoples everywhere.

In Ngurru-milmarramiriw / Wrong Skin, Elcho Island community and Elders collaborate with award-winning director Nigel Jamieson (Honour Bound) to create a Romeo and Juliet tale of forbidden love in a community where the complex laws of ‘skin’ and clan define all relationships.

Performed by the wildly spirited Chooky Dancers – whose unbridled interpretations include everything from Bollywood to Taiwanese martial arts alongside traditional creation stories – Wrong Skin also reveals how new technologies, in the hands of the island’s media-savvy youth, can connect the remote with the global and inspire us all.

Wrong Skin promises to be the most original, energised and irresistible performance of the year. From the far Northern reaches of Arnhem Land to Sydney: it’s time to get down, up top style.

“TAKES AUDIENCES ON A RICH, WILD RIDE WITH NARY A DULL MOMENT FROM GO TO WHOA.” THE HERALD SUN

“A POWERFUL MIXTURE OF DOCUMENTARY REALISM AND THE JOYOUS CELEBRATION OF LIVE PERFORMANCE.” THEATRE NOTES

A SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE, MALTHOUSE MELBOURNE, ADELAIDE FESTIVAL, AND DARWIN FESTIVAL COMMISSION.

This project has been assisted by the Australian Government’s Major Festivals Initiative managed by the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body, in association with the Confederation of Australian International Arts Festivals, Adelaide Festival, Darwin Festival,
Malthouse Melbourne, Sydney Opera House and Performing Lines, proudly supported by: The Performing LinesFoundation, The Keir Foundation, The Traditional Credit Union, Bundandon and Air North.
Coming to Sydney and elsewhere.

http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/whatson/wrong_skin.aspx

Book review by Chris White

During our tweedledum-dee election I read the biography of Percy Brookfield – a conviction left labour politician.

Historian Dr Paul Robert Adams takes us through Brookfield’s exciting story – the events when a radical unionist becomes a politician and keeps and fights for left principles, ’the greatest champion that the people ever had.’

Not many unionists today know of him. I was in Adelaide having a cup of tea with 90 year old AWU union militant Jim Doyle. He of course had not only studied this labour legend, but at one time his task was to look after the gravesite.

Nobody elected into the NSW Parliament today is like ‘Jack’ Brookfield MP from Broken Hill. At his funeral 15,000 marched and sang ‘The Red Flag’.

Brookfield’s militant stand and his unrelenting political radicalism is revealing and refreshing.

He was notorious for his combatative criticisms of ruling class employers and politicians. Today’s unionists and ALP MPs are just far too timid.

The media and right-wing politicians attacked him for his stances, such as, ‘not to fight for the British flag as long as they were making profits out of the war’.

He was hailed as the most extreme anti-politician ever to be elected.

He delivered reforms for workers. He became politically more popular nationally with radical speeches at mass meetings.

Adams takes us through Brookfield’s story starting as a key organiser in the great strikes on working conditions and shorter hours for underground mining in Broken Hill.

‘If you want the 44 hour week, TAKE IT.’

We are engaged in the struggles to prevent and then compensate for the industrial diseases.

He campaigned tirelessly winning Occupational Health and Safety and Workers Compensation reforms.

Before, during WW1 and the years that followed saw radical labour movement battles and unprecedented political turmoil.

Brookfield supported the 1917 NSW General Strike. We are taken through the 1919 Great Miners Strike/Lockout.

Brookfield was a supporter of the OBU, One Big Union.

He on principle campaigned successfully over many years to free the ‘IWW Twelve’ from their trumped up police convictions to burn down Sydney.

He supported many left activists persecuted by the government’s ‘anti-terrorist’ laws of those days.

Governments prosecuted him. He was jailed for his principled anti-war speeches against the viper PM Hughes.

His powerful leadership against conscription contributed to the success of the NO referendums.

A socialist not a communist, he learnt about and supported the new Bolshevik revolution and their supporters.

He always spoke the truth as he saw it.

‘Ironically, while he was an extremist, he was able to put his opinions in a way that drew people to him rather than driving them away.’

Adams recounts the left labour movement struggles with the colorful leaders like Brookfield and their battles with right-wing enemies, the NSW ALP.

In Parliament Brookfield was tenacious and outspoken for his left causes.

Brookfield later joined the split from the NSW Right ALP to form the Industrial Socialist Labor Party and was reelected and held the balance of power in the NSW hung parliament.

The reader knows in advance that Brookfield was then fatally shot at Riverton in South Australia.

Was his shooting an assassination? Adams takes us through the events.

Although these are different times, our unstable capitalist contradictions and the environmental crisis invite militant left convictions and organising.

Left activists struggling against powerful corporations, right-wing forces and their political representatives are invigorated by this history.

I agree with Humphrey McQueen’s comments and other reviews.

‘In life, as in the manner of death, Brookfield made personal sacrifice the measure of his political commitment. Morally and physically fearless, his probity withstood parliament. Paul Adams has given us a biography as thoroughly gripping as it is thoroughly researched. Inspiration floods from its pages’.

Please inform bookshops and libraries and union resources.

Dr Paul Robert Adams was born in Broken Hill. He holds a PhD from The University of Sydney and currently teaches media at The University of New England.
Published by Puncher & Wattmann 2010. httw://www.puncherandwattmann.com

TheBestHatedMan_Order-1

The UK Communications Workers Union – covering the postal industry (such as British Mail) has a fantastic, high quality “TV” channel online.

The production qualities for CWU TV are very high, and it is up to date, covering recent issues like the UK Labour leadership vote.

The interviews are also relatively indepth, see more from creative unions

http://www.creativeunions.org

In the last few months ten Australian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.

Since the Dutch have pulled out of their previous position near Tarin Kowt in the Orūzgan Province, the US military has filled the gap, and their approach is not working, as can be seen by the deaths of six Australian servicemen in this region.

On this basis it is safe to say the US approach is a failure with four Australians killed in the last three weeks alone.

This typifies the US approach to the Afghan War in general.

There have been insufficient resources allocated to rebuilding or creating rapport with the civilians, and an understated determination to “suppress” the Taliban, no matter the cost in the lives of those who live in the combat zone.

The latest position of the Australian Defence Department is that Australian troops are only in Afghanistan to train Afghan National Army fighters.

However, it seems clear from the past few weeks’ escalation in Orūzgan, Australians are increasingly fighting and dying.

With the death of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney, 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment has gained the dubious legacy of having lost the most fighters of any Australian Army Unit since the Vietnam War.

There is little doubt these numbers will increase, both in injuries and lives.

The Taliban forces seem to be well supplied, and they know that the US military will start to pull out in July 2011.

Not only is public debate needed on the nature of the War being fought in Afghanistan, but Australian political leaders need to avoid parroting the line of ‘our brave boys’ and to begin a detailed and intensive analysis on how to support Afghanistan in the wake of the US-led Coalition’s coming departure.

We must ask ourselves if we have learnt the lessons of history, in particular from the Vietnam War, as this conflict drags on and the battle for “hearts and minds” loses ground every day.

There needs to be not only debate but action on Australia’s ongoing commitment to an increasingly bloody and brutal mess which has installed an illegitimate regime under Harmid Karzai who is expected to be most receptive to US needs.

There is a rising civilian death toll which can only lose the support of ordinary people.

This is not a war that can be ‘won’, or where Australia can help the USA to ‘win’. This is a situation where we must stop the damage.

Help shift our political leaders by writing letters demanding Australian soldiers come home now, before the damage done gets any worse.

For Peace & Justice

Peter Murphy, Secretary
Rob Durbridge, President

SEARCH Foundation

Write a letter / email to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott and Bob Brown

Write a similar letter to the editor of your daily newspaper

Modify this text:

Ms Julia Gillard MHR
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7700
Fax: (02) 6273 4100

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Julia-Gillard/161674172327?ref=ts

Dear Julia,
I write to urge you to support public opinion and develop a plan to withdraw Australian troops from Afghanistan, and to give serious thought to moving our soldiers out as soon as possible, but certainly in July 2011 when the US will start to withdraw its military forces.

You say the current mission in Afghanistan is to train Afghan National Army troops, however, the intensification in conflict in the Orūzgan and Kandahar provinces suggests our people are actively involved in escalating fighting.

I remind you of the Vietnam War and the quagmire that became in terms of endless loss life and the ignominious exit.

As a concerned citizen, I request you urgently reconsider your stance on Afghanistan and our troop commitment there.

Sincerely

Mr Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
RG109
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: (02) 6277 4022
Fax: (02) 6277 8562

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx

Senator Bob Brown
Leader of the Australian Greens
GPO Box 404,
Hobart TAS 7001
Ph: 03 6224 3222
Fax: 03 6224 2999
senator.bob.brown@aph.gov.au

Celebrating the first ever U.S. Social Forum (USSF) in Atlanta, Georgia in 2007, National Planning Committee member Rubén Solís avowed, “This won’t end in Atlanta.” He was right. Three years later, the second USSF was held in Detroit, Michigan, June 22-26.

In the period between the Forums, the country experienced economic crisis and expanded war and occupation. The potential role of the Forum was captured by this year’s National Planning Committee which stated that, “These and other crises and opportunities present a historical moment for movements to intervene, to shine, and to provide answers and solutions to the great problems facing our people and our planet.”

With over 15,000 participants representing a multitude of social movements and hosting over 1,000 workshops, the event was an engine of hope and an expression of the need for social change.

Participating artist and activist Ricardo Levins Morales said he was there because: “I go to movement gatherings to pick up on the mood on the front lines. My major finding, and I found this very encouraging, is that there is a growing hunger for a way to unify our struggles. It is more obvious to people that our issues and reforms cannot be won in isolation from all the other manifestations of inequality. It is a major step forward in this country that the need is so acutely felt.”

Peter Bohmer, a professor of political economy at Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington (and part of a 70-person contingent from that state), said that the Forum provided a space where good networking took place and where “people feel energized with renewed purpose.”

The workshops, plenaries, and panels comprised 14 program tracks covering domestic, national, and international focuses, such as “Capitalism in Crisis,” “Climate Justice,” “Indigenous Sovereignty,” immigration, war, race, class, gender, and much more.

Specific topics included transit, health, workers control, education, and community, and were presented by groups and organizations from Detroit and around the country.

Bill Fletcher, Jr., who is on the editorial board of BlackCommentator. com, said the USSF was energizing and that it “was well organized and extremely diverse, both at the level of demographics, but also in terms of politics.

” It was the “anti-Tea Party,” he said.

On the one hand, there was a plethora of workshops, on the other, as Bohmer pointed out,

“There does not seem to have been much progress on developing a program or strategy for moving forward towards a better society or for addressing the weakness of the U.S. anti-war movement.”

Bohmer did mention some workshops that were “insightful” and that presented “strategies about how to get to a society that is not capitalist” while offering “the key institutions and structures of this alternative.”

One of these was the workshop by the Organization for a Free Society (OFS) “Economic Crisis and Strategies for a Participatory Economy.”

One of many hosted by OFS, it was described as examining “the impacts and opportunities the economic crisis offers for the construction of a revolutionary new economic model built on equity, solidarity, diversity, and self-management.”

The topics of economic crisis and vision and strategy for a participatory economy were presented compellingly to an overflow crowd by OFS members Meaghan Linick-Loughley, Pat Korte, and John Cronan.

Assessing the potential strategic role of the USSF, Fletcher identified several big questions at this moment.

“One is whether there will be work that takes place in the aftermath of the Social Forum to engage participants, whether it is theoretical work or mass campaigns.

The second is whether the forces gathered in Detroit are going to be thinking through how we build a strategic bloc in the U.S. that is capable of fighting for power—both in the short-term regarding significant structural reforms and in the long-term for a radical, anti-capitalist alternative.”

USSF Communications Coordinator Adel Neives summarized her thoughts about the potential of the Forum and what stood out for her:

“One of the most exciting parts of the Forum was the People’s Movement Assembly (PMA) process, which culminated in one large national assembly at the end of the week, where more than 50 national days of action were planned and more than 100 resolutions presented on issues ranging from workers’ rights, displacement, and global migration, challenges facing Detroit and other post-industrial cities, media justice, transformative healing, and fossil fuel extraction.”

Can the PMA take advantage of what the National Coordinating Committee called the “historical moment” and become the “movement of movements” needed for fundamental institutional change?

In a recent ZNet article, Thomas Ponniah, co-editor of Another World is Possible: Popular Alternatives To Globalization at the World Social Forum (Zed Books, 2003), frames the question:

“Is the Forum primarily an arena for movements to propose a diversity of alternatives or is the Forum a political agent that is pulling movements together into a counter-hegemonic program?” Ponniah points out that, officially, the World Social Forum’s Charter of Principles states that “the Forum is a space that does not aim to take positions that speak for all of its participants.”

Since the inception of the World Social Forum in 2001, the Social Forum process has proved to be a staple feature of 21st century progressive movements.

As for the USSF, the organization and participant turnout at its second gathering has been exemplary and seems to be growing. Therefore, it may still be an appropriate choice for the USSF to temporarily remain a social movement space to bring others into the fold, building momentum for discussion about program and developing shared visions for the society we want.

However, when the time is right—when there is a critical mass—the role of the Forum as a social space versus a social agent should be challenged. Otherwise, over time, the Forum might succumb, at worst, to bureaucracy and academic exercise or, at best, to being a movement gathering and fair with no active purpose other than to exchange information and socialize. In either scenario, participants are lost to boredom and withered hopes.

It was in this spirit that, in 2007, Z Communications submitted a resolution as participants in the PMA to the effect that, “The United States Social Forum put out a call/entreaty that each organization, coalition, project, and movement that intends to relate to the second U.S. Social Forum in 2010… prioritize developing proposals and presentations for vision and strategy to win that new world.”

With multiple social and material crises affecting the world and our everyday lives, the need for such an orientation and a “movement of movements” has long been obvious and necessary. Can the USSF become part of such a vehicle? It has the potential, but it is up to everyone to bring it closer to realizing that possibility.

Z

Chris Spannos, an activist, is also a staff member of ZNet and editor of Real Utopia: Participatory Society for the 21st Century.

US labor against war