Lest we forget that on ANZAC Day last year 3 miners were trapped underground. Two miners emerged after 19 days. The mine had been bought for a song by Macquarie who had placed all workers on AWAs.

I am shocked that the right to strike over safety issues will remain illegal.

I enjoy looking at the grand of dames of 19th century architecture which would have been demolished if Jack Mundy and the BLF had not placed Green Bans on those sites.

Well, I guess as my Daddy used to say Tristan, never let the facts get in the way of telling a good story. I guess what's in your favour here is the fact that the WorkChoices legislation is complicated and most people reading your article will not have read it. Let me therefore correct a few matters of fact: the new legislation [and therefore Kevin Rudd's alignment with it] far from removing the right to strike has, in fact, entrenched that right -- for both employees and employers. When negotiating collective agreements both parties are permitted to "withdraw their labour"; it is called "protected action". It is only in the negotiation of individual workplace agreements [AWA's] that industrial action is not permitted, by either party. But this is only appropriate, as strikes are collective action and logically inappropriate for AWA's. It is also illegal for an employer to terminate an employee for refusing to sign an AWA. Wake up and examine the facts, Tristan: of the entire Australian workforce, only 21% are members of unions -- and that becomes 17% if we eliminate public employees. Your antiquated socialist views have been rejected by the majority of the world's workforce, not just Australia's.

I take it Doc Halliday that you have never signed an AWA.

I have signed contracts where I knew what the award wage was and my contract was paying well above the award that was fine. As an experienced young professional at one stage I didn't keep track of the relevant award and was surprised to discover the Western Australian mining company I was working for was paying me 2/3 graduate starting wage, so I left that job and quadrupled my pay within 12 months with 3 job hops across a few state boundaries.

I have also in recent years signed an AWA. There was no pretense of negotiating ability, you may be rostered on once you return the signed AWA. When there was a dispute about minimum call out times, I discovered that the only copy of the full agreement existed at the employers office. I had signed an abbreviated copy of the agreement that only covered full time employees. The employer was using pattern bargaining to write the AWAs of their casualised 1000 strong workforce.

My 19 year old nephew has had to set up his own company to earn the right to distribute glove box size Yellow Pages at shopping centres. He is responsible for his tax payments and superannuation and public liability. Puhleeze!

In the mean time we have corporate moguls celebrating his 70th birthday with amazing displays of excess published on the front page of The Australian and according to rumour he attempted to screw the events suppliers into the ground.

My poor billie. It is obvious that you have not noticed that a few fundamental things have changed in the 45 years since Jack Mundy and his mates Joe Owens and Bob Pringle ran their BLF fiefdom. Workers no longer have to strike over safety issues, as Australia has some of the toughest OH&S laws in the world, with personal penalties of up to $2.5 million and 5 years in jail for failing to provide a safe workplace. Any person can make a complaint to an industrial inspectorate, which will be vigorously followed up. You might also bear in mind that Jack and the boys used their Green Ban strategy as a cover for, and a threat in relation to, their practice of industrial extortion. The BLF used this cover in devastating conjunction with the (then) new strategy of strikes in the middle of concrete pours.

Doc - yes there is a semblance of 'protected industrial action' in AWAs, but it is only during the negotiating period for an enterprise agreement and there is no flexibility to respond to redundancies, unfair dismissals, health and safety concerns, and other workplace issues such as the victimisation of employees. Also - and this is the crunch - the Minister or the AIRC has the ability to declare any strike action illegal, and especially in the case of the building industry - excessive sanctions apply to both unions and individual workers. It's true that under Keating there was only limited protection industrial action. But I think we need to go further - for the right to withdraw labour is a human right - without which we are practically slaves.

well said

slaves yes

all these conditions are nothing

the one thing that labor has not agreed to is the most important.

just like our anzacs and those who followed what was it about labor has no idea about that either when it comes to the people.

why have anzac day if labor is doing the opposite to what our defence for fought for.

Labor is the traitors party

www.tapp.org.au

if you want real change become a member or candidates as both wanted.

I am a ex army med discharged soldier.
I am treated as a waste byproduct by labor and liberal, all like me are treated this way and all others the same except for anzac day

become a member become a candidate

and fight for what is right

www.tapp.org.au

The Labor party appears to forget it was born of the unions/working class.

I believe that the right to withdraw labour is a fundamental human right that Australia has signed up to in a UN treaty/agreement. (I am sure someone will know the agreement that I refer to.) It would be interesting to see a test case in an international court.

I once used to think that the 'secret ballot' was perhaps a good thing for unions but then realised that maybe it would only be good if our members of parliament also complied. Wouldn't it give a new meaning to democracy if there were secret ballots by our pollies. Imagine the furore if it were suggested

Billie, you’ll have noticed how the patronising Doc Holliday avoided your issues about employers manipulating the new IR laws to avoid their obligations in the drive for profit. Like your 19 year old nephew who had to set up his own company to sell advertising, my 20 year old was obliged to do the same to teach music. This allowed his employer to avoid all obligations on tax, superannuation, leave and insurance. Desperate for work, he signed a contract as a casual that rendered him powerless to improve his situation. He was not allowed to work for anyone else in the same field, was forbidden to criticize the company and had to find his own replacement in the event of becoming sick. If kids didn't turn up - with or without notice - he didn't get paid for his time or travel costs. The fine print required services at the end of term for which there was no remuneration. This company now has a compliant workforce rendered powerless to negotiate a fairer deal. Or so they imagined.

He resigned after a few weeks of this madness costing the company heaps in terms of goodwill, replacement processes and causing hardship for the kids and their families. Not to mention additional costs to Centrelink and taxpayers.

As for the so-called right to strike, good ol’ Doc picks the facts that suit him and ignores those that don't. In Parliament, the IR Minister gloated he will be able to declare strikes illegal where they threaten life, personal safety, (no argument with those), 'health or welfare of the population' or are ‘likely to cause significant damage to the economy’ (Hansard 2 Nov 2005). And who judges when a strike is likely to do that? Why, the Minister of course.

The 'Right to Withdraw your Labour' is not about the ability to strike, it about the right to quit. It's about indentured servitude and slavery, which aren't just yet included in Work Choices, but give it time....

If the detriment to the unions is so large with the new Rudd 'rollback' then they logically should disassociate from the ALP. If it is daunting for them to contemplate going it alone then they should appreciate that as a service industry there will be plenty of work available. This is because Howard's Fair Pay Commission has decided to release all data on pay rates. There should be enough angry potential union members resulting from this for the progressive union service industry to boost its market coverage well beyond the current 27%. It might also keep many union officials from deluding themselves that they would make talented politicians.

I'd like to know when this fabulous IR legislation that is being touted as so good for the economy and Australian workers was advertised in the 2004 Election campaign. I don't recall Howard mentioning it. Where were the ads detailing WorkChoices? There should have been night after night of ads about WorkChoices. Or maybe they just happened to have been on when I wasn't watching. And why wasn't the legislation ready when Howard beat Latham on Election night? It's all a mystery.

I fully agree with the premise that we have, and should have, a right to withdraw our labour. I have done it about a dozen times in my life when I was no longer happy with my employer for any of several reasons - insufficient challenge, inadequate remuneration, poor leadership, or unethical practices. In each case I withdrew my labour by resigning from that particular position, and went and found myself something which challenged, remunerated, and led me better in an ethical business.

What I have trouble with is the belief that one can withdraw their labour today, but still expect to go back to their job tomorrow. I do not believe that should be a right. If an employee withdraws their labour they have, in effect, terminated their employment and should have no right to subsequently march back in to their former job.

Doc Holliday is extremely naive to think that "withdrawing your labour" can work today, with Howard's No Choice legislation. Withdraw your labour and find another job is more to the point mate.

Once withdrawn the AWA can be ripped up and re offered, with any conditions and you know it mate. If Doc thinks people are not sacked for refusing to sign AWA's he's living in the Wild West where his beliefs belong. Being sacked doesn't always mean just told to nick off. It also includes a new AWA you can't survive on so refuse. That's not choice.

Could Doc explain to us why John Howard isn't on an AWA? Why he hasn't negotiated away his entitlements for extra $? You know why. It wouldn't work and he wouldn't even get an offer from his electorate today.

If we are going to persist with the silly Left and Right business and you have read or experienced a few elections you should know that Rudd is doing exactly what Hawke did. That is stealing the ground Howard initially trod on. That's why he will win.

Howard has moved dramatically to the right (ask Malcolm Fraser) and left the slightly right of centre ground vacant. That's where Rudd is now. There is no Left in the major parties at all. The Greens are as Left as it gets.

Where does Rudd differ from Howard?
The right to strike is the workers ONLY weapon. Without that they are back to the 1800's and everyone should know that. What else can workers do but unite and work together in the face of the advantage an employer has.

By the way a survey today actually shows business itself is not that keen on No Choices at all. They know the matter is one of negotiation, not bullying.

Those employers that are using Howard's atrocious legislation will fall by the wayside and the moderate employers will benefit, as ever. In the short term things will though devastate many and that falls at the feet of one person (I can't call him a man), Howard.

perhaps workers should create labor companies, rather than labor unions?
a labor co-op could provide a flexible 'no lost time' labor force, while assuring members an income and protection in contract negotiations.

that would assume that workers were willing to work, to combine in mutual support, and were willing to put their labor to the test of the market. does seem unlikely, but the current system leaves all the cards in employers hands. best then to collectively become an employer, and by joining them- beat them.

The right to strike is a right that should be used only when every other avenue has been exhausted and only if people are at genuine risk of injury or death.
Unfortunately the right to strike has been abused by the union movement over many years. Strike action has been taken with no consideration at all for the flow on effects to other workers or the potential loss of pay or even employment of innocent parties.
Unions have a "rights" philosophy rather than a "responsibilities" philosophy. Even Rudd is looking to curb the power of the unrepresentative minority of left wing socialists who still believe that they should run the country.
The examples given by at least two of the correspondents to this column are unlikely and, if true, represent unconscionable contracts.
I know of at least eleven people delivering material similar to that described and none has had to set up a small business to do it. I also know of a number of people teaching in franchises whose contracts are nothing like that described. I suggests the correspondents advise their two young family members that they should have explored the situation further before signing anything - if indeed that is what they did sign up to.

Communicat:

If unions are so 'irresponsible' in using strike action, why is the level of industrial disputation the lowest it has been in 45 years, and why have levels of industrial disputation been so low in general since the 1980s?

Yes - strike action should be a last resort in collective bargaining - but when unfair conditions are foisted upon woekers, there is no other choice but to take action, or to curl up and accept the injustice. Strike action ought be an option - for the sake of redressing the great imbalance of power that exists between capital and labour.

re: 'unrepresentative' 'left-wing socialists' wanting to 'run the country'. Under Hawke and Keating manufacturing was left to wither on the vine, and privatisation of utilities, banks, GBEs occurred - often in breach of the ALP Platform - and hence the ALP's mandate - against the will of the Australian people.

Most Australians are not socialists, I agree. But most socialists in the ALP and elsewhere promote compromise policies that fall way short of any 'socialist objective', and which hold the support of a great many Australian voters and citizens. They seek industry policy, progressive taxation, a strong social wage, a mixed economy, a fair labour market.

The socialists, who you seem to so loathe, are actually more representative of Australian citizens than the neo-liberal ideologues who dominant both major political parties in this country.

Tristan

When you work you are a servant of the person who employs you. Negotiation of terms and conditions is a privilege, not a right. While unions continue to believe that they have the right to dictate terms and conditions to employers then there is no chance that everyone will be employed for a fair and reasonable terms and conditions. Unions and their members may get what they want but too many others will miss out as, endeavouring to meet unreasonable union demands, other businesses fold or go off-shore and Australians lose employment opportunities.
The union movement has prevented my employment on more than one occasion despite agreeing that my humanitarian volunteer work is incompatible with union membership - I got told to give up helping others by the "caring union movement". Sad really.
That's it for today of course.

In most cases, a new employee is presented with an AWA and given the choice of 'sign this or work somewhere else'. There is no negotiation. In the case of existing employees, it may be illegal to sack them for refusing to sign, but employers can make a workplace hell for those not behaving in a desired manner.

If an employee excercises their right to withdraw labour by quitting due to unsafe workplaces or unworkable AWA's, they are then called bludgers if they fail to walk straight into another job. And what will happen when all workplaces have these conditions?

Anyone who thinks that there are no unsafe workplaces because of OH&S laws and no bullying or intimidation due to harassment laws is either very naive or kidding themselves. Employers break laws all the time and many are not caught because workers either don't know their rights or are too intimidated to excercise them.

While I agree that striking for political reasons ought to be illegal, it is absolutely necessary for unions and workers to have the ability to look after our working conditions. Employers have proved time and again that they can't be trusted to look after them for us.

Statistics may show low unemployment, but jobs are still hard to get. Unskilled workers, like myself, are aware that the consequences of standing up for yourself are less hours or unemployment.

What has the ALP Platform as decided at conference got to do with the policy of the Parliamentary Federal ALP?

The ALP federal cabinet makes policy in government always has always will, the federal shadow cabinet makes policy in opposition always has always will.

Conference has always been a sham, always was, always will be.

Waht do strikes achieve? Sweet FA

What I always find a bit amusing is references to someone or something being undemocratic. Sure, such things may be. However, imagine the opposite scenario, if you will, where some (or maybe even most or all) in a party want one thing, but the leader takes a "principled stand" or does "what's right for X" (where X = the party/the nation/Aussie battlers/people who like riding ponies). I guess it depends very much on your perspective (as well as a person's political success -- try finding anyone who ever voted for Howard by next year: amazingly, there won't be a single person!) as to whether someone is a visionary or a dictator.

Probably what a lot of people on the hard left of politics don't realise is that Kevin Rudd and the ALP won't get in by being hard left, just like the Coalition won't stay in by being hard right. Okay, maybe there's a difference between really being centrist, and being able to talk yourself up as one (and your opposition as being out on the extreme), but that looks to me why Kevin Rudd is going to be successful and why the hard left (either in the ALP or other parties) will get to come along for the ride (rather than missing the boat yet again).

The post from billie (9:26:14 AM) seems to be an attempt to connect opposition to AWAs with the ANZAC spirit.
Let us not forget how the maritime unions used their human right to withdraw their labour during WW2:
In January 1942 while the battle for Singapore was raging, the Waterside Workers' Union (WWF) went on strike in Sydney, forcing the Curtin Government to order Naval personnel to unload ships. The workers went back to work when the PM threatened to remove the workers' exemption from military service.
In March 1943 during the battle for Guadalcanal, there was a 16 day strike in Sydney forcing the Curtin Government to order in troops.
In September 1943 and December 1943 strikes by the Seamens' Union forced the Curtin Government to order Naval ratings to crew ships.
"Lest we forget" indeed.

If we are going to have"unfair dismissal" shouldn't business have the right to claim "unfair resignation" when an employee is trained for months or years then decides to up and leave on a whim or fancy?

There should be no economic recompense in unfair dismissal cases since the lawyers just make merry with semantics.Kevin Rudd says that after 12mths unfair dismissal should apply,but many could just bide their time in the anticipation of getting a big payout.Many in the past made a career under Labor of claiming unfair dismissal,moving from one business to another.

Unfair dismissal should go,but the real issue is the devil in the detail with work place agreements.I see very few notions of equality in these arrangements.The employer draws them up and the employee has to take or leave it.We can simply arrive at a situation whereby oil companies have an unstated agreement to put up the price of petrol on certain days and screw the customer.There should be negotiable and non-negotiable items that are hammered out by an independant body.

If John Howard does not make work place agreements more equitable,he will lose the next election to a bunch of no talent wonders and we will see a really false dawn of economic lies with banana republic senarios,that Paul Keating so infamously alluded to.

The devil is always in the detail,and the framework for these workplace agreements have not been well thought out or well executed.

I agree with Kevin Rudd that strikes should be avoided at all costs, and I'm sure that the author would agree with me.

However, strikes can be vital in ensuring that unreasonable demands, safety concerns and instances of intimidation are met. Yes they should be a last resort, but no, they should never be illegal.

Most employees, union and non-union alike, wish to avoid strikes, but there are times when a strike is the only instrument left to employees. In many cases, these desparate situation are not within a bargaining period.

I will always support the right to strike. The provision for a ballot to be held before industrial action can take place, while seemingly benign, are a hurdle placed by the Howard government to prevent or delay strike action and place significant financial costs on those orgainising industrial action. Rudd appears to be going along with
this.

Communicat:

"When you work you are a servant of the person who employs you. Negotiation of terms and conditions is a privilege, not a right."

I've never been a servant. I've always been a person. With the right to a safe, fair workplace that pays a living wage. Perhaps you should read up on the working conditions of children in the industrial revoution to see what effects your ideas of IR would have.

Here's one to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Industrial_Revolution

People are not slaves to their employers.

communicat,

do you run a business? If so, please give me the details so I can post them around the country, along with a copy of your own post.

Servant of the employer? Wages and conditions a privilage?

I have a paragraph-long description for someone like you but I would be banned if I posted it. You are a contemptable individual. Take your warmed-over Hayek recipe for modern-day slavery and shove it up your neo-conservative, economic fundamentalist quince.

The right to withdraw one's labour is truly the difference between freedom and slavery (or serfdom at least). I am deeply disappointed by Rudd's IR policy, it is little more than a revised edition of workchoices. It is only better than Howard's version by the fact that workchoices is the most appaling IR policy in the industrialised world, so nearly any change is an improvement. It is, however, to my way of thinking, unacceptable.

Good on you Tristan for openly embracing socialism. After a long discussion on another forum, we concluded that most Australians do want some measure of socialist policy in government, they are simply unaware of the true meaning of the word as decades of conservative propaganda has firmly embedded in their minds images of goose-stepping red army soldiers, repressive regimes and collapsing economies.

Keep up the good work mate.

I am actually surprised at how much exploitation workers put up with before they strike. When I look at the appalling wages of minimum income workers and the high incomes of the management it amazes me that workers do not rebel more readily.

History has shown that the wealthy know almost no limit to the degree which they are prepared to exploit the workers nor the degree to which they are prepared to indulge themselves, eg building the Palace of Versailles while millions of peasants had not enough to eat, deciding St Petersburg should be built on a swamp, etc.

I don’t know why the wealthy don’t just recognise that workers have legitimate needs for a reasonable standards of living and safety, provide them and then there would be no danger of strikes. But it seems that looking after the dividends is more important than looking after the people who actually do the work.

And bad timing with the OH&S spruik – the finding of nil liability at Beaconsfield nails that one shut.

Tapp you find new ways to be offensive, the miss use of Anzac day to slander a political party be littles you a person who says he has served our country.
Another deliberate lurch away from the thread to promote you party shame mate shame.
As a trade unionist I have an understanding that workchoices and this government is the enemy we must defeat this year, no other way exists to a fair go at work

The trade union movement MUST have the right to strike returned and MUST use that right with due care.
Not as a promotion for a union not as a political tool.
But wise unionists MUST not use that right needlessly.
Right now in the midst of a fight that will enter union history some unions trained only to fight are letting members down by not showing up in the workplace for many months.
It will take generations to re build trust in some workers who are expressing anti union views because of this.
Solidarity never was needed more than now.

Rob asks:

"I don’t know why the wealthy don’t just recognise that workers have legitimate needs for a reasonable standards of living and safety"

Hmmmmmm... BD puts his thinking cap on..and AHAH! I see it!

Romans 3:9

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."

UNIONSISTs MUNDY and the BLF were shown to have a dark side in posts above. (strikes during concrete pours? I'd call that WAR)
CORPORATE giants were shown to be greedy and exploitative by others.

So, we have the dark workers and the demented bosses. Hmmm where do we fit in? why of course, we are the squeaky clean do gooders right? :) If only WE were in charge.. running things.. yep.. all would be well.

THE PROBLEM
...is not with the legislation. That would never cover all possibilities, just as the Jewish traditions and religious law tried to but failed.
No..the problem is with us. We are fallen, flawed and feeble. Morality is something we respect as long as it serves our interests.

Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world."

Yep....thats us alright.

THE SOLUTION.

Eph 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

GRACE....not LAW

Outlawing pattern bargaining strikes is unreasonable and a denial of the human right to strike.
Single employer enterprise bargaining by Howard is obsessively legally enforced. There is no sector in the Australian labour market or bargaining system in the OECD which fits the fictitious model of ‘genuine’ enterprise bargaining – all bargaining systems contain elements of pattern-setting and workplace bargaining.
Over 100 years unions had the choice of industry, sector, pattern and enterprise bargaining campaigns around awards or agreements. Legitimate industrial action in reserve was tolerated. Pattern or industry bargaining was widely accepted as pragmatic and chosen by many industrial parties.
WorkChoices specifically makes pattern bargaining, ‘seeking common wages and conditions’ across a number of employers, unlawful. This is one of the worst labour law regimes in the world. Even the US does not make pattern bargaining unlawful.
The ILO (1998). criticised Australia because industrial parties should not be denied how they bargain and at what level. ‘Provisions which prohibit strikes if they are concerned with the issue of whether a collective employment contract will bind more than one employer are contrary to the principles of freedom of association on the right to strike’.
In the building and manufacturing industries with a 150-year industry history, outlawing union pattern or industry bargaining flies in the face of industrial relations reality. Building and manufacturing industry bargaining contributed more to productivity than enterprise or individual bargaining. This applies to other sectors.
Employers in trade, industry and national associations act together bargaining for their common interests. Many employers impose ‘pattern bargaining’ with standard individual contracts applied across the workforce.
Workers in national industry unions to be effective combine with other workers for common industry agendas. This is why workers want strong unions. Outlawing pattern bargaining strikes undermines union industry campaigns. Employers should not have this legal anti-union weapon. Unions should have freedom of association.
A modern recognition of globalisation is to allow collecting bargaining agreements with the global corporations across countries, on the ILO right to strike.
An ALP Rudd/Gillard government should not ban pattern bargaining strikes. References available whitecd@velocitynet.com.au

What I don't understand is what Tristan is still doing in the ALP. Yeah, you preferentially vote ALP, because at least they're not complete psychopaths. But putting your good name to such a band of disgusting little hypocrites? Why?

There will always be a danger of strikes due to the fact that Unions must be constantly fed and that requires a worker not surviving in a workers paradise, and it is so easy to vilify the unseen corporate entity. There will always be safety issues in industry, especially high risk work like foundry work and mining. The difficult part is balancing wages with employment numbers and getting the resource to market at a profit and a usable benefit to the end user so that they too can manufacture their product and get it to market and make a profit to continue or expand the cycle that is in broad terms "industry".
The mechanization of much of industry is something of a double edged sword. On one hand it promotes a safer workplace by using mechanical units to do the hard work and on the other, fewer workers are then required, resulting in job loss. It also changes the power dynamics between the corporations and the unions, and the relationship between the shirts and the sweats. New working agreements are necessary as are new ways of viewing the "manufactured" adversarial proponent of employment negotiations. The times and industry have changed and will continue to thanks to innovation or, um, industry.
Change does. :-)

It never fails to amaze me how so many people can become indignant about perceived transgressions of rights that don't, in fact, exist. Many of the contributors on this issue are stumping up old trade union chestnuts that merely support union dogma. Some of the discussion appears to be a chat-fest between Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara.

Unfortunately, most Australians gain their understanding of the law from American TV shows. Once again, let us look at what is, rather than what a small minority would like it to be:

The “right to strike” is not explicitly contained in any ILO convention. The ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (‘CEACR’), by expansively broad interpretation, claimed it is a right that arises “by necessary implication” from the ‘Freedom of Association Convention’ and the ‘Right to Organise Convention’. But this is just the view of a vested interest – not international law.

Even when governments ratify international codes and conventions, that does not mean they are law in those countries. That then depends upon the particular government formally making domestic laws based on those conventions.

Prior to the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 (Cth) [the Act], the assumed ‘right to strike’ was not protected by legislation in Australia. Prior to that Act becoming law, trade unions and trade union members who took industrial action were exposed to actions for damages in tort and contract. The Act, for the first time in Australia, provided for immunity from civil liability for striking employees in limited circumstances. The WorkChoices legislation has further defined and entrenched that right – but has limited it to lawful negotiation and to matters not covered by other legislation (such as, OH&S laws covering safety issues).

Belly what a suprise you finally worked out what was missing.

Another thing since being ex army med discharged it is you the labor and liberal party that belittles our anzacs.

This is due to the following

Safety rehabilitation and compensation act
Vet Affairs
the right for the people no matter who they are for free speech and not to be kicked out of an organisation.

The right for the people to have a choice to strike for their rights or not too.

The complete disrespect of those who have served but not in a hostile enviroment but have been injured.

But above all the anzacs and their legacy is about choice, freedom of speech, democracy.

So while you are at your dictatorship of a meeting have a think why the people do and will not have these rights.

Due to you your parties and their arrogance to the people.

So to belittle is to disrespect, to dictate, not have a democratic voice.

This is labor
this is liberal

So next time you say that i am belittleing the anzacs you just better look at yourself, and what you and your party have done, Just like Centenary house it is about you and labor nothing else as the royal commission had said" this was not in the benefit of the people".

This is disrespectful, this is belittleing the anzacs and their legacy.

www.tapp.org.au

It never fails to amaze Doc Holliday how “so many people can become indignant about perceived transgressions of rights that don't, in fact, exist.” The ‘right to strike’ says the Doc, is not explicitly contained in any ILO convention.

However, it doesn't amaze me that Holliday overlooks two ILO Conventions - Number 87, Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 and Number 98, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1949. Australia is bound by these Conventions (Creighton, "The ILO and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights in Australia" Melbourne University Law Review 22, 1988, p239; Novitz, "International and European Protection of the Right to Strike, A Comparative Study of Standards Set by the International Labour Organization, the Council of Europe and the European Union", OUP, 2003).

While it is true that the right to strike was not enshrined in Australian law until 1993, the right to strike has been long acknowledged and upheld both in Australia and internationally (Novitz 2003). Australian workers have a long and proud tradition of taking strike to protect their interests and those of working people generally. All the employment rights we have taken for granted (until recently) have come, not from the generosity of employers but as a result of worker’s struggles, including industrial action (with nary a chat-fest nor Marx, Lenin and Che Guevara in sight).

Interestingly the US State Department Report on Human Rights Practices (2005) was critical of Howard’s IR laws which now significantly restrict Australian workers’ right to strike.

Anyway, regardless of the legal right which is threatened by the Howard government, strikes will always be necessary as a last resort for at least two reasons: (1) to challenge unfairness and imbalance between the interests of labour and employers; and (2) to protect democratic liberties that are under threat.

In an era where workers are increasingly casualised, isolated and easily picked off by employers, the right to collective action has never been more necessary.

Please don’t believe Doc Holliday’s legal distinctions. A right to strike is international labour law. Australia agreed to bound by the UN and the ILO principles to protect the right to strike. WorkChoices is in breach. A Rudd/Gillard government has to comply. Contact me for books; see references in my opinion posted http://www.labortribune.net/

Doc Holliday is OK about freedom of association for unions to collectively bargain with ‘protected action’ being entrenched. Employers (and even Hayek) accept this restricted right to strike. The debate is on the scope of this lawful strike. In WorkChoices outlawing pattern bargaining is going too far; as is the compulsory complex ballot processes and the absolute prohibition during the life of an agreement.

Doc Holliday is against the right of an individual to strike over an AWA. This was in the former Reith version, but repealed by WorkChoices. I support modern human rights that it has to be a legal right for the individual to withdraw labour without penalty (other than losing pay). The employer and state should not intervene, nor logically a union.

By viewing the right to strike also as a civil and democratic right, scope exists for a legitimate political protest strike, e.g. attending rallies against WorkChoices.

But not the ‘purely political’ strike to bring down a government, not tolerated by any state. But right-wingers supported Solidarity against the Stalinist regime and reactionary oil workers against Chavez. South African unions protesting against apartheid and in Zimbabwe against dictator Mugabe…surely?

The environment is the world’s greatest challenge. Surely workers should have a right to strike to assist environmental community assemblies to protect the environment?

WorkChoices further limits the right to strike over health and safety. Workers have to have an absolute OHS right to strike.

Howard has a political law and order strategy to legally suppress strikes, on the idea that this works. But mostly repression does not work. Rather a lawful strike as a last resort means the employer is more likely to bargain and reach agreement, without the use of the strike. So a downward pressure on strikes.

Just finished reading "Terminate With Extreme Prejudice" which as its title implies is a history of assassination in the twentieth century. The book claims that 80% of assassinations were targetted at labour leaders and that the CIA and its predecessors was more active than the KGB.

I watched that very slow turgid documentary on SBS about peak oil and was appalled at the oil companies complete disregard for disposing of waste safely in their operations outside the US if it was going to cost more to do so. And was shocked to hear it ennunciated that America will support any regime that will supply oil irrespective of their human rights record.

Now that we have very draconiation anti-sedition laws and a government hell bent on casualising the workforce and outlawing unions when can we expect union leaders to be popped off and would it be reported in the news?

Oh, billie, billie, billie. What are we going to do with you?

Unfortunately, this is my last post and I will have to leave you at the mercy of contributors from the shallow end of the gene pool, like FrankGol and tapp.

I don't have a problem with people wanting the right to
withdraw their labour. As long as they accept my right to
fire them when I don't need their services anymore.

At the end of the day, labour is just another commodity
like money, grain, or you name it. Anything else is
kidding yourself.

if you're worried about the cia, billie, so you should be. they have been vastly more successful than any other covert intelligence/operations organization. this is not a high standard though, the jobs they have been assigned are usually mission impossible.

and there is a high degree of 'snap-back', too: they turned iran from a parliamentary secular society with a socialist prime minister into a brutal dictatorship owned body and soul by the usa, and the cries of "well done" were still in the air when the corruption, torture and general brutality of the shah's regime provoked a revolution through the religious structure of the nation. hence the rule of fanatical mullahs in a nation not naturally fundamentalist.

they may not get what they aim for, but some bodies will fall. they have been vastly more successful in central and south america. they supported and cleared the way for pinochet, for instance.

nothing you can do about it. being australian, there's nothing you can do about anything. politics is not for your class, my girl, it's a reserved occupation, pollies only.

Billie

your quite happy to become a candidate for The Australian peoples Party, but that is up to you.

Demos your comment does show how arrogant you and you labor and liberal partyies are.

You common folk are not of the right stature to represent yourselves.
Let us from the school of coruption and deciet represent our party in government,common folk once they have voted us in we can do as the party tells us to do.

Yes demos their is something we can do and that is stand up to pr@cks like you, so go stick your head up your bosses backside and check out the sun again.

And your comment all i can say is moron.
nothing you can do about it. being australian, there's nothing you can do about anything. politics is not for your class, my girl, it's a reserved occupation, pollies only.

Time for dictatorship to go

www.tapp.org.au

"At the end of the day, labour is just another commodity like money, grain, just about anything else. Anything else is kidding yourself"
Posted by Yabby

People like you are why we need the right to strike Yabby. Yabby is a good name for you. You have all the social conscience of a crustacean. You cannot treat labour as just another commodity without treating the human being who supplies it as just another commodity. You may not believe that we have any particular right to a living wage or fair and decent working conditions but the vast majority think otherwise.

Now go forth and evolve a heart and central nervous system.

I'd just like to respond to comments earlier to the effect that Kevin Rudd is a 'centrist' and that the 'hard left' are just going along 'for the ride'.

These are loaded terms that are thrown around to provide a distinct impression. We assume that the 'Centre' is 'mainstream': in touch with the public. But the mainstream of the Australian political class defies mainstream popular views: as against 'mainstream' politics, people are willing to pay tax if it goes towards essential services, and most people have always been opposed to the privatisation agenda promoted by both main parties.

The ALP Left is a very broad church. In reality the ALP Right has gone so far to the right, that the ALP Left now compromises the whole gammut from what some would call 'state socialists' to 'Right social democrats'. By 'Right social democrats' I mean those who have accepted a good deal of the neo-liberal ideology, but for whom liberalism on social issues, and a remnant welfare state - are still valid. Even Julia Gillard has tried to voice her support for the 'Third Way': which is really nothing more than a mixture of a threadbare welfare state, authoritarianism on some social issues, and acceptance of most of the neo-liberal ideology. Social democracy is so marginal, including in the ALP, that many of a progressive inclination feel no alternative but to join the Left in order to find like minds.

As I said, though - policies the Left supports: industry policy, progressive taxation, public health, aged care and education, a mixed economy, a regulated labour market: these are actually closer to the popular will than the neo-liberal ideology promoted in the ALP Right.

Continued in next post:

cpnt from last post...

What we need is for activists in the Right to refrain from 'convergence' politics - and to promote the kind of politics that the traditional base of the ALP used to expect from the party: and should still be able to expect. The Right can do this, with a sensible measure of compromise to build a sufficient bloc of votes, without adopting the bulk of the neo-liberal ideology, promoting punitive sanctions against labour, or forsaking an independent foreign policy.

And we need a Left which is willing to take a public stand on these issues, to relativise the public sphere, and shift the relative centre of debate, to give more genuine voices in the Right and Centre room to act.

And importantly, we need to remember that 'Right', 'Left', 'Centre' - are always relative. Many people comment that they used to be on the relative Right, but that the ALP has shifted so much that they now find themselves on the Left. A lot of former Democrats and current Greens voters feel this way. Because Conservatives by and large control the public sphere, we find the relative centre shifting to the Right.

This is what we need to contest - by establishing our own media and cultural enterprises - by bringing together welfare groups, unions, churches, social movements - to form a real 'counter-hegemonic' movement.

This is what the ALP current fails to do in any way. Rather than leading debate to shift the relative centre, the Party reacts to pressure from industry groups, monopoly media etc. I don't expect that Kevin Rudd can be as forthright as, say, I can, without endangering a portion of our electoral base. But I think there is still room to lead, rather than just react, without sinking to opportunism of the worst kind.

"You may not believe that we have any particular right to a living wage or fair and decent working conditions but the vast majority think otherwise."

I said no such thing. My point is that you don't understand
business or economics, perhaps you've never tried to run one.
You are free to try and see how you go.

At the end of the day, its not business that pays your wages
or conditions, but consumers. If business can't sell your labour
and make a profit, they close. Social welfare is the role of
Govt, not business. So you can claim all the benefits you
want, if consumers won't pay, time to shut the show down.
Thats the reality. Job creation schemes don't solve anything,
as we have shown in the past.

Now lets say I run a business and win a contract, so employ
30 extra staff. Great, everyone benefits. There are no guarantees
that I will win another. If I don't, I'll have to fire those
staff, I can't pay them to twiddle their thumbs. If you then
want huge payouts, even when you might walk out the door and start
another job elesewhere tomorrow, why should I risk hiring you
in the first place? I would be foolish, and business is not
about being foolish. So then of course you'll complain that
there are no jobs. Well duh, blame yourself for not understanding
the system.

At the end of the day, consumers hire workers, business is just the
middle man. But of course you will continue to shoot the messenger.

Gday fozz nice to see you active here, can we take a breath?
Some said workers are not much less than slaves?, is it not clear workers too are small business people selling their time and outputs to live.
Why value a bosses product so much higher than a worker?
Why is it ok for a boss to want wealth but not or a worker to want a better lifestyle?
And from what distant place has the idea come that in an IR dispute the boss is a saint and the worker the sinner?
Such thoughts exist and are a sign that conservatives in this country like their leader John Howard are past it.
The coming electoral train wreck is richly deserved.

Demos as we can see run your party line and do as you are told.
there is always something we can do about it.

nothing you can do about it. being australian, there's nothing you can do about anything. politics is not for your class, my girl, it's a reserved occupation, pollies only.
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:41:10 PM

Belly please explain why the labor party wishes to open another uranium mine but forbid using it here, hypocrites.

Also about the right to strike this will only be during a bargening period.
what happens with safety you cant go on strike just wait until somebody dies, hang on cant go on strike then either.

Belly labor may give the people, overtime,public holidays but not the right to strike unless during a bargening period and and also a secret ballot, common whats happened to rights.

Oh belly what is the going rate for labor and the unions nowadays, seems that you are pretty cheap.

I am so waiting for Greg Combet to come to this safe charlton seat, lets see how safe it will be.

Tapp will fight and tapp will stand up to you from the common people.

www.tapp.org.au

"Tapp will fight and tapp will stand up to you from the common people."

A tapp-dance or a political soft-shoe shuffle?

To those questioning it. No I am not in paid employment. The ALP and the union movement effectively prevented that...yes, the very groups that are supposed to be "for a worker's rights".
Then there is the small matter of the fact that employers take on many risks that the employee does not take on.
I still believe employees are servants. That most certainly does not mean they are without rights but it does mean they have obligations. Obligations are what most Australians do not want to know about. There seems to be a culture in Australia which says "aren't you lucky that I have agreed to work with you" rather than a "thankyou for having the faith in me that I can do the work you need done and let's get on with it as a team" culture. The latter will get us a long way further than the former. In the end what happens with the former attitude is that jobs go off-shore and nobody benefits - and that lack of benefit extends to the unlucky individuals who end up working in sweat shops because our labour has priced itself out of the market.

Tapp I doubt you and I can talk much more, you are aware are you not, you have zero political skills, understanding, and chance of making any impact?
And back to the thread a unionist can be a friend of the boss!
Yes true the thought that unions must be at war with every employer is tripe!
And no problem with a firms owner making fair and worthwhile profits from his investments.
But yes a worker has rights and they need them some bosses are not nice people.
How can any one say some workers will never own a home? in the case of casuals maybe never even own a car?
Some who work are battling just to feed the kids.
A group of NSW based construction workers had the boss invite them to come to Queensland with him.
He said they had earned it by great efforts.
On arrival that international team of grubs!
Refused to pay living away from home or caravan allowance!
Yet these his prime workers[his words] pay $600 a week for a caravan.
Safety is so bad one death and two near death events have taken place in the first months of work.
Not all bosses are saints.
Not all unionists are wrong.
Strike? yes always we must have that right.

DEMOS so i take it from your comment pollies should only be from upper class

nothing you can do about it. being australian, there's nothing you can do about anything. politics is not for your class, my girl, it's a reserved occupation, pollies only.
Posted by DEMOS, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:41:10 PM

Belly
Now we are getting somewhere
what are you going to do if workers can only strike and that is after a secret ballot and during the bargening period.

Like i said a partial piece, this is unacceptable especially if something goes wrong.

The conferance will tell which are the bad union reps as they will accept, a partial decision about strikes
but as you know if something goes wrong the the crap will hit the fan.

As for my political way I say it as it is, so if you dont like it stiff as no pandering here.

Frank Gol

That will be with a size 8 1/2gp boot, with pride and respect.
At least the electorate of charlton is where i live so to bring somebody in from elsewhere, well that goes to show what Greg Combets electorate think off him.

My electorate,my suburb,my community,my neighbourhood,my street now that is the difference.

I live here with the common folk as being one of them, so who is better to represent them someone from the upper class.

No wonder this country is in so much crap.

www.tapp.org.au

Communicat, well said. Far too many folks these days unwilling to take up the responsibility for their lives and welfare. The backlash has already been enormous with a lot of possible employment going elsewhere to establish their workforce. Who's going to hold up the welfare state once things get so unbearable that the fast food chains have to charge $15.00 for a happy meal? Welfare will never be able to afford that extravagant lifestyle. What would that make the price of a loaf of bread?

That last post highlights that we do not always understand the issue.
Happy meal? is the writer aware that those kids working weekends have suffered very badly as a result of workchoices?
overtime no longer paid?
Or that single branches have $40.000 hours? yes take that much in one hour.
And the views amount to saying a worker must control his/her wages but some in business can increase income without fear.
A workers right to strike is needed and will be returned you can bank on it.

The right to strike could be taken back by the workers of this country tomorrow if they so wished. All they have to do is stand together nation wide and down tools so that the whole country comes to a standstill. I guarantee the politicians would panic and give them want they want in the face of so many angry voters.

When this is achieved and they go back to work, if any employee or union is penalised they should again down tools nationwide and stand together until these penalties are withdrawn. How much exploitation and hardship will it take before that happens? We'll have to wait and see won't we. Things turn full circle. Unions didnt form originally because things were good for the workers. Workers were forced to act out of necessity to feed and house their families.

A member of my family is a manager who hires and fires people and doesnt like the unions. Also likes the new dismissal laws as doesnt like deadwood employees. However in conversation with me a couple of days ago related a story had heard of a top executive earning $100.000 who was dismissed and a new person given their job on a salary of $50.000. Even top management are nervous about these new IR laws as they can see that it could be used against them as well.

Belly we understand perfectly. We understand the net result on not only employment but the net result on the increased cost of living and the increased cost of the basic purchase price before tax, and we understand the cost of living after taxation.
You can quit your job and seek other employment anytime you like. Vote with your feet. Using Unions to hold hostage the people who created the employment has had it's day. India is creating entire economic zones and special taxation packages just so those companies will open shop there. What do you think the difference in the size of the labour pool is? What do you think is the difference in labour cost will be? Unionist never stop to consider the changing world and that they may just have out priced their usefulness.
I'm not anti union. I'm just saying the world is a different place than it was 20 years ago. Careful your not left behind. Every job that leaves Australia is gone from Australians.

Aqvarius keep to your path! do not let the light of true understanding enter a disturb your views.
That is the fault of your leader Short bottom Howard.
It is the very reason he is leading the lemming rush to this years election.
With no doubt at all workchoices took away human rights that even some near third world country's give workers.
Yes some reform was long over due, some extreme and radical actions of some unions asked for trouble.
But do you truly think we can only build prosperity by taking it away from so many who work?
Is in just a few generations the Aussie fair go to die?
Have the words of the founder of modern Liberal party in relation to fair wages and the right to union representation been forgotten?
John Howard is nothing less than a mockery of the man he built himself on Sir Robert Menzies.
And Australia is about to find true reform and fairness returned to IR.
Saddest of all? Howard has miss managed our foreign policy the AWB and almost everything he has touched and only now his once followers are becoming aware of it.

You miss my point belly. I'm suggesting corporations need not be hamstrung by hostage taking and hijacking methods used by unionist to strong arm high hourly wages while offering to do less actual work. Yes it is the bad unionist that promote this behavior in their negotiating but, they have set the example and even the most docile union is held to account. China and India and other countries with lower cost of living will be the new beneficiaries of what could have been Australian jobs. If you don't understand this, that foreign direction of manufacturing exist and that these countries are creating the environment to anticipate new and old companies alike, you will miss a hell of a lot more tomorrow when you wake up and find your company that you have relied on for and to maintain your high standard of living has moved offshore. Blame me, blame John Howard, bay at the moon. Gone is gone. Employment is not a right. It's a privilege. As for the Liberals, what can they do any more than the Howard government. Zero. Howard's standing there with his finger in the dike. And the next guy up, regardless of political bent will have to take his place, and if it is a left left of centre government he or she will probably need to use more than one finger to stem the flow which is a trickle to becoming a torrent.

Why would any corporation want to pay you 28.00/hr plus a full benefit package when they can relocate to India or China and pay 5/hr.
Globalisation baby. The world is wide open and your not competing with just Australians. You must consider cost of living. Why open a business in a country that requires the minimum of 10/hr just to get by -not considering the social benefit package. When there are countries begging for the jobs and that have cost of living standards that make 5/hr seem like hitting the lottery. Maybe it's something to think about?

Dear aquarivs,

What you say re: globalisation is important. India and China are providing a pool of cheap labour the likes of which we haven't seen before. But we should not be engaging in a 'race to the bottom in wages and conditions' in order to compete:

a) There is room to retain what's left of protective mechanisms - this can be justified by the trade deficit.

b) We need to build movements of international solidarity to work for better wages and conditions in China, India and elsewhere (including Australia). More solidarity, not less, is the answer for a fairer world economy.

c) With a proactive industry policy, and a first class education system, we can attract investment regardless of wages and conditions in China and India. The Nordics, in particular, have first class communications, automotive, defence industries - they sustain this with interventionist industry policies, targeted subsidies, highly skilled workforces, 'niche' marketing at the high end of the market...

Most importantly - as I said - we need more solidarity, not less: only with less solidarity can a 'race to the bottom' succeed.

Tristan

Tristan: Many of your points in response to me or aqvarivs may indeed be right, and in some ways I agree with you (in many I don't).

However, a large part of the problem is that middle Australia is not actually with either you or Howard. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Yes, in a sense, the average Australian is opposed to the economic agenda of Howard or multi-nationals. On the other hand, the average Australian also wants to be able to go down to Bunnings or JB and pick up a cheap Chinese imported drill for that home renovation, and a cheap Chinese imported DVD player for when the renovation is finished. Likewise, Australians all seem to want incredible social services AND want to pay little to no tax. I lean to the right in economics, but I'd be at least somewhat happy if people could sort themselves out one way or another and stop making a lot of noise about this when their spending habits are in direct opposition to their supposed values or where they'd like to see Australia in the future. We're a really muddled lot.

I wonder if we shall ever get the balance right. We need some extra reward for those who work hard, work smart, take risks. These behaviours are essential to overall wealth and prosperity. But how much differential is enough to motivate people to do their best? I don't think that everyone has a right to a job, or has a right to be able to make a living. These things need a degree of striving and luck. I have striven, and had my share of luck and so I survive. But why should workers have a right to collectively withdraw their labour and assume that paid jobs be available when they choose to resume? Withdraw your labour at any time that is your right. But withdraw it and expect that your entitlements be continued without interruption seems unnatural. Self interest is the key. How to maximise self interest for all parties is the task. Crippling strikes are a lose/lose formula. Collaboration and cooperation are more likely a win/win. But international solidarity would mean a big lose for the workers of developed countries and a big win for those of undeveloped lands. We need to recognise the primacy of selfishness and to realise that victories are only temporary pertubrations of economic things that find their own level eventually. Less dogma, more realistic attention to selfishness as the prime motivator.

I note one poster has an understanding of the differences in unions and how some act.
That difference is every thing, but remember its some not all unions
Monday last week, by invitation, a firm I had never heard of asked me to come and talk to its workers.
Faced with 21 non unionists who never wanted to meet me, the whole thing was looking like unwanted trouble.
It turned out they each worker had been harassed to join a union.
Fear and threats had been used, and not one of them had ever been a union fan.
So why me? why had the boss asked us to get involved?
12 months ago he had just been a worker and a member of my union.
He had as a last resort withdrawn his labour and got in a day every cent he was owed.
He now wanted to formalize what he paid his workers.
We commenced talking about an agreement that mirrors what the best in his industry are paying.
How do union haters handle that? not a boss held at bay by useless idiotic unions but looking for fairness from one.
Those workers? half for the first time ever joined a union.
The other half may never do so but not all unions are mugs or thugs.
Pride in a movement that is not one bit different than the dozen bosses unions in existence.
Would never let my union be anything else than fair handed
Our right to strike is needed because just as not all unions are saints nor are all bosses.

so much hot air, so little light,

tapp, if you wish to lead the people to new grasslands, you need new ideas, or at least some understanding of old ones.

do us all a favor, go to wikipedia and read what they have to say about 'democracy'- especially 'direct democracy' and 'democracy in switzerland'. even if you don't agree, you will at least have a base to argue from.(a good idea for every ozzie- don't say you have democracy until you know what it can be)

further, unlike nearly every australian i have met, i believe in the collective wisdom of the electorate. i am certain they will be on the right side of any question much more often than any political gang.

further, i believe in their sense of justice and common sense. so i espouse democracy in australia, over any other kind of government. in particular, my contempt for party rule is even handed, alp and the liberal party are very slightly different, but neither gives a fig for the welfare of the nation if some personal or party advantage interferes.

finally, i'm sorry my sarcasm to 'billie' went over your head. over everyone else's head too, if that helps. but i was accurate as well as cruel: you, billie, and every australian are political cattle, unable to participate in directing your society. not at local level, not at state, not at national. i wish you would change this situation, but first you must realize it exists before you can stand up and take responsibility for your life and welfare.

Tristan,

News reports tell us that the ALP conference voted unanimously for an IR policy requiring secret ballots of unionists before employees may take industrial action (but not secret ballots of shareholders before management can take industrial action by locking out employees), banning pattern bargaining and abandoning most of the allowable matters in awards pre-WorkChoices for Employers. The “Left” went along with all this. Any comments?

Dear Chris,

I think, on this occassion, we've gone to far for the sake of unity. I think on concerns of vital interest to the labour movement, the Left should have made a more principled stand. And I understand there are those who are concerned this might have undermined the leader. But we are still months out from a Federal election - and I don't think taking a stand at this stand would compromise our chances.

I know there were some in the Left who accepted the position on secret ballots. Some unions have already been operating on this basis for some time. This is still a worry, though, because for some it will put hostile employers in a good position to organise prior to any strike action. It's also bad because it supports the reactionary understanding that somehow unions 'force' workers into industrial action - and that you need this as a counter-measure.

But I'm surprised if a position banning pattern bargaining has got up in the platform. I know Rudd had committed on this issue, but people I spoke to seemed to think it wasn't a 'done deal' yet, and that a compromise might have been reached for the sake of unity.

I think pattern bargaining is by far the most disturbing issue issue - but I'd like you to point me to an up to date link to be sure. The issue of having less allowable matters... Already the ACTU had stopped short of asking for a return to the old system. With the 10 matters now protected (not sure what these are), the ACTU more or less got what it wanted.

But I agree this isn't enough. For less organised workers: the industrially weak, the protection of conditions under the old Award system was all they had. I think that we need a more more 'in depth' Award system if we are to protect the most vulnerable workers.

Tristan

Dear Tristan

I in no way am suggesting “a race to the bottom” or that all protective mechanisms be surrendered in the face of globalisation and the distinct differences between standards of living around the world.

However, I also would not suggest that the western world transplant their cost of living into an emerging populous or the unionisation of the third world to suit the idea of western socialism.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that Unions are the ONLY way. Let the individual countries define their own path and answer their own employment issues. They may find the answer in reactionary confrontation with the employers or they may by their own national or cultural personalities achieve employee protections out side of unionism.

Unions require constant “injustice” to perpetuate their “caring for the worker”, at a cost to the worker. Unionism in itself is a industry dependent on the labour of “exploited” workers to survive.

I don't pretend to have the perfect answer I am just one of a few observers who have noticed years after the collapse of colonialism which the left like to refer to as right wing hegemony, that today, the left in their perfect socialism want to export their ideology throughout the third world as benefactor, with out due consideration for the out come.

The way in which our society has developed is not by virtue of being ours necessarily the best way to manage social interaction. Transplanting our failures as a society is hardly beneficial to an emerging society that is made up of completely different cultural and religious and historical social norms.

I think employee negotiations are going to have to be rethought in the light of this fast changing world. Investors and employers have a lot more options now than, as I said earlier, 20-30yrs ago, and they aren't feeling any more patriotic than the socialist.

It's an injustice to ask the employer and the investor to “do it for the country”, while the worker and unionist are only doing it for their wallet

Tristan,

I don’t have a specific link. I relied on news reports that the conference passed the proposed IR policy unanimously and several earlier TV and printed news reports that said it would ban pattern bargaining. If that last requirement did not make it to the conference proposal, I am pleased. But there is still the issue of how a national conference of a political party can end up not having a single delegate vote in accordance with the beliefs of many, if not most, members of that party. But I am relaxed about it because I know that any members who complain will nonetheless vote for the same state conference factional delegates next time around any way who will then vote for the same factional national conference delegates again in order to produce another policy reversal that they, the members, will complain about again before…ad infinitum.

Dear Chris,

You're right that a lot of rank and file ALP members will vote for the same factional candidates regardless of that faction's track record on the Conference floor. But on the other hand, National Conference delegates from Victoria are not elected by the rank and file: they're elected by State Conference delegates - who are, in turn, controlled by factional leaders.

I think there would be more accountability were National Conference delegates elected at an FEA level by rank and file members. That way, at least delegates could be expected to run on platforms themselves - and could be held accountable at an FEA level.

I also worry because I'm not even sure that the Left is serious about 'getting the numbers' for Conference: as if we accept only the Right can make the hard decisions necessary to win government.

I would like to see more serious efforts made to split the Right vote on a permenant basis - giving rise to a new Centrist faction with which the Left could deal.

And I'd like to see a Centre faction that had a preference for dealing with the Left: who made the compromises necessary to win government, but who did not have the ideological commitment to neo-liberalism or the kind of naked opportunism that characterises the Right by and large today.

In short, I'd like to see a new alignment of forces under a genuinely social democratic program.

I say this on the understanding that democratic socialism and social democracy are really part of the same broad tradition.

Finally, I'd like to see the Draft Platform released more than a week before Conference. Several months before would be acceptable, not less. Without opportunity to debate proposals well in advance - and with last minute policies being put forward as if the leader's credibility rested upon it - then internal democracy really is a sham.

Tristan

Gday Belly!

Nice to see you here too mate. Your presence is missed over at the other forum. Spot on about the richly deserved electoral train-wreck. I can feel it coming on.

Yabby,

So the consumer hires the employee and the employer is just the middleman? That's an unusual claim. I didn't realise that the middleman's services came 100% free with the deal to the customer. I guess I just don't know anything about economics or business eh?

It always amuses me when CEO's on multi-million dollar salary packages bleat about workers pricing themselves out of the market, even if what they pay themselves bears little relationship to the actual profitability of the organisation. You would think that they would lead by example and reduce their own bloated pay packets - you know, for "the good of the company". I'm not suggesting that you can afford to pay yourself in the millions Yabby, I have no idea what you make. But I'm damn sure it isn't $0.00.

Those who have checked out my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will known that I am a fighter for justice.

If in the coming federal election there is a political party who desires me to stand as a candidate for them to fight the issue of WorkChoices then I would be willing to do so.

It is now the question, who will follow as sheep and who will join me to hold politicians and judges accountable for the rights of workers?

Now, the post by Tristan Ewins is one I have no problem with in that it does raise the issue about rights of workers, but I for one would state that had I been worker for an employer I would go on strike, if there was a need for, and the entire WorkChoices legislation would not be worth the paper it is written upon to stop me, as it would not be able to do anything against me.

I am about to publish another of my books;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on IR WorkChoices legislation
book about the validity of the High Courts 14-11-2006 decision
ISBN 978-0-9751760-6-1 (Book-CD), 978-0-9751760-7-8 (Book-B&W), 978-0-9751760-8-5 (Book-Colour)

This book sets out why the High Court of Australia had it so wrong in its judgment.

Let anyone check out this 14-11-2006 judgment and seek to discover any references to “civil rights”, and this is the point.

The Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional rights to interfere with workers “civil rights” and I view the ALP should wake up and deal with that issue.

As I have set out in my published books, our constitution guarantees our “civil rights”, lets have the HCA judgment overturned!

On 16 April 2007 I did forward to the judges of the High Court of Australia a DRAFT Chapter 022 which now has been divided up in several Chapters but Chapter 022A still sets out issues the HCA either ignored or simply overlooked that were relevant.
Those interested to get a FREE copy of Chapter 022A by email merely send me an email to request it to be forwarded by email (email address is on my website).

Thats strange as i have emailed you but had no reply

Stu

The Australian Peoples Party

www.tapp.org.au

No email received from you as I would have responded to it.
One email address, belonging to the website is blocked, as I understand by the government, but my other shown on the website http://www.schorel.hlavka.com is a yahoo email address and that is working.

I have no need to burn my reputation to claim to sent out material and not then doing it. However, if I do not receive your email then check if it was not wrongly send out.
Otherwise, look up my name in the phonebook (white pages) and forward a fax with your email address and I take it from there. Phone number is also the fax number.

I have absolutely no doubt that if you are really interested of getting rid of this so called WorkkChoices legislation in a lawful manner you will makew sure I get your email address.