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.