Chris White on Qantas, employer lockouts, and the Fair Work Act

Above:  Alan Joyce is not very popular these days amongst the Australian trade union movement...

In this article Chris White gives his opinion on the recent Qantas lockout in Australia, and the changes he thinks are necessary to the Fair Work Act to prevent lockouts, and protect the right of workers to take industrial action.

Chris White is the former Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia and remains active in the Australian labour movement. 

His blog is here:   http://chriswhiteonline.org/

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, Board Chairman Leigh Clifford from Rio Tinto, Richard Goodmanson Board member and former Rio Tinto Director, and Dr John Schubert a director of foreign multinational BHP-Billiton and former President of the Business Council of Australia (the BCA is the peak body for multinational corporations) not surprisingly militantly employed rightwing anti-union practices with the corporate union busting legal firm of Freehills.

They were most incensed by pilots wearing red ties –unionism! Baggage handlers were stopping for short periods and on TV marching with placards through the airport.  Engineers had responsible limited bans. None were in force on the day of the lock out during so-called ‘good faith bargaining’.

Qantas' aggressive lock out power was to defeat legitimate workers’ industrial action.

The very powerful corporation secretly planned after the AGM to ground the airline without notice to anyone, disadvantaging the flying public and politically challenging the Gillard government.

The lock out was in response to legitimate job security claims

See:

 http://afr.com/p/business/companies/what_the_unions_want_1XPzVNsdfoO8ijqgol4e1O.

Now from the ASU

http://www.asu.asn.au/media/airlines_general/20111104_aviation.html

And see this re: the engineering alliance

see: http://www.amwu.org.au/read-article/news-detail/810/Unions-combine-to-secure-Qantas-engineering-jobs-/

Many unionists now say that employers ought not to have the right to lock out.

An amendment to the Fair Work Act FWA that removes the lock out must be introduced.

The more powerful corporations instead are to be required to negotiate a collective bargaining settlement with their workers.

Qantas management tactics shows why the lock out ought not to be available in any reasonable collective bargaining system.
The unions had to go through technical process requirements, applications to FWA for protected action, ballots with members voting in favour and technical notice processes and constant negotiations. If unions make any technical defect, Freehills seeks that the industrial action is  “unprotected” and huge fines threatened.

However, Qantas management simply plans that after the AGM we will immediately ground and lock out.

Now the Fair Work Act FWA (the same as WorkChoices) allows this management tactic. The FWA has no requirement for the employer to give notice to lock out, nor balloting of shareholders at the AGM and certainly not the processes forced on unions for strikes. This is a serious process deficiency and yet another rule for the 1%.

For our collective bargaining system to work for employees against the more powerful corporations, lock outs ought not to be allowed at all.

Some nations prohibit lock outs on the basis that they tilt bargaining power too far towards employers.  

The International Labour Organization ILO principles and most labour relations systems are based on the widely accepted reality that employers have the greater power over their workforce.

In any decent labour law, the lawful right to strike is necessary to afford some ability of workers and their unions to counter that employer power. The lock out as shown with Qantas denies any such balance: the effectiveness needed for workers to bargain in their interests. Gillard claims balance – but this is just spin.

In any case, most employers legally reserve lock outs as a genuine option of ‘last resort’, rather than the Qantas ambush of ‘first resort’.

Some labour relations systems require notice and some balloting of their shareholders. The principle is some notion of ‘proportionality’ to govern the usage of lockouts.

But not in Australia. Our right-wing corporates with their law firms are gearing up to emulate the Qantas tactic against any industrial action.

Unions’ experience is that disputes are not resolved by the lock out but by sitting around the table negotiating an outcome, a real agreement. At the end of the dispute and the industrial action management and their workforce have to continue to work with each other.

Unionists remember. There are long-term consequences.

Workers are in a difficult position facing the lock out. Here is a film of a US workers’ struggle against Rio Tinto’s lock out:

See: - www.lockedout2010.org

For a reference on Australia lock out read ‘Lockout Law in Australia: Into the Mainstream?’ Dr Chris Briggs University of Sydney acirrt working paper 95.

Suspension only

My next point is to support suspension only of the lawful strike - what the Qantas unions wanted.

The Qantas tactic forced the Minister’s application for an order to terminate protected industrial action rather than suspend it.  

Suspension first means no industrial action - here I believe the unions suggested 120 days. At the end of that negotiating period if no agreement is reached, then protected industrial action can resume.

Fair Work Australia due to the lock out instead terminated all action. The parties are now in a FWA conciliation process for 21 days.  If no resolution is reached, FWA imposes an arbitrated outcome on Qantas and unions and the workforce. We shall see what happens. 

See: Shae McCrystal University of Sydney http://theconversation.edu.au/why-fair-work-australia-terminated-the-qantas-industrial-action-4092

The FWA provision is rarely used even when the economy is significantly damaged. On the day I did not believe union action was causing significant damage to the economy, now held to be the case by FWA. But due to the lock out FWA said such action was enough threat to the economy and terminated both actions.

I believe it would have been fairer if the lock out had been terminated and the unions’ protected action suspended.

There are alternatives

The Fair Work Act has alternative devices as well as the lock out for Qantas to halt the limited lawful union industrial action. As I write I watch the Senate hearings and Senator Doug Cameron asking Joyce about alternatives and why he did not ask Fair Work to intervene rather than to lock out.

See also:   http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/04/joyce-faces-fire-in-senate-grilling-on-qantas-grounding/

For the employees’ right to strike to be effective, their protected action has to be allowed – to mitigate against the power of the corporations - and ensure a settlement between the parties. 

The ability of employers or the Minister to halt protected action ought not be available because it undermines the effectiveness of strike action as a bargaining tool.

Any reasonable collective bargaining regime has to have employees and their unions be able to organise and strike – which we would prefer to be without government interference.

See: http://chriswhiteonline.org/2009/09/right-to-strike-restrictions-4/

Political dictatorship

I comment about Abbott urging what he would have done, now trumpeted widely by the political right, namely to use section 431 - unprecedented direct Ministerial power to stop a strike.

PM Gillard in the Fair Work Act (FWA) retained WorkChoices’ many repressive measures to stop lawful strikes and this included s431.  I repeatedly argued that all restrictions on the withdrawing of labour have to be repealed for an effective freedom for workers to take industrial action without being ordered back to work.

The FWA sections terminating a lawful strike require at least an independent hearing with evidence and merit submissions before the umpire or a court makes the order – hence the reality of the weekend Fair Work hearing. 


But in section 431 of the FWA, the Minister simply has to form an opinion about damage to the economy and then proclaims the termination of protected action - no independence, no evidence, no merit argument, no process is required – simply the Minister not liking a strike and employers asking him to stop it.  

This political power to affect the lives of workers and their right to collective bargaining and to strike is an outrage.

I criticized Howard for introducing s431 into Work Choices after lobbying by the rightwing mining corporations such as Rio Tinto. Gillard should not have been retained it in the FWA. It has not been used and rightly would be subject to legal challenge. Section 431 breaches existing international standards.

Only a political dictator would use it. Abbott is proud to say this is how he will act. Section 431 and indeed all of the Work Choices anti-strike provisions have to be repealed.

On 71% Joyce salary increase, the Gillard government’s reforms to CEO salary rises is proved to be inadequate and again this Parliament has to act.

Overall what Qantas does is how corporations work in this capitalist crisis outsourcing jobs and why workers and their unions reasonably resist.

See useful further comments by Ben Eltham here http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/01/naked-conflict-between-profits-and-wages

Again - for Chris's blog see:  http://chriswhiteonline.org/

Abbott a threat both to fairness and prosperity

above: Australia's Federal Parliament House

In this article Tristan Ewins considers the coming Australian Federal election, incuding what the consequences of an Abbott conservative government would be in terms of social justice and economic prosperity.

As the 2010 Australian Federal election nears the future of our nation hangs in the balance. A few months back many would have thought the prospect of an Abbott Coalition government unlikely at best. Labor was riding high in the polls: credited with navigating our way from the dangerous shoals of recession. And the government had done this with an eye to social justice, not only reforming pensions, but also buoying consumer confidence with direct payments to those on welfare and low incomes.

As opposed to the conservatives, Labor looked to the future; with a promise to build the National Broadband Network, laying the foundations for the future knowledge economy. By comparison, in this regard the conservatives have been short-sighted and opportunistic.

Further: the Abbott ascension to Opposition leadership initially underscored divisions amongst the conservative parties, and their lack of substance and credibility on climate change.

But since then – and for some months – it has been mainly downhill for Labor.

There were issues that had weakened the government for some time, but Labor's re-election chances remained strong.

The home insulation and school infrastructure programs are now widely believed to have been poorly managed. In reality, though, the school infrastructure program added to the stimulus when it was needed most; and for many schools the product of the expenditure has been of real value: its benefit long-lasting. Genuine shortcomings in regulatory oversight were partly the fault of public servants who should have advised the government, but the government could not avoid responsibility for flaws in policy implementation.

As a consequence, the conservatives have been able to make up ground on the theme of “competency” outside any values context.

More recent developments, however, have threatened the survival of the Federal Labor government.

The mining industry fear campaign over resource rent taxation had saturated the media, marking a turning point with Labor put decisively onto the defensive. Suddenly Rudd’s leadership was seen as a liability, with a ‘fresh start’ perceived as the only way to stem the haemorrhaging of the government’s support.

With Julia Gillard now catapulted into the office of Prime Minister, Federal Labor’s support in the polls appeared to firm. Gillard thus resolved to take advantage, and seek for herself a mandate, calling an election for August 21.

But since then Gillard’s proposal for a ‘Citizens Assembly’ to work for consensus on climate change has been interpreted as indecision. Further, Abbott has whipped up groundless fear over debt (Australia’s government debt is amongst the lowest in the world), and has outflanked Labor in trumping the government with commitments to aged care and mental health funding.

Finally: Sensational leaks from within the government have overshadowed policy debate, and for many the removal of Rudd has left a bitter aftertaste.

Importantly, here, areas of the media are to blame for focusing on this drama of leaks from within the government, and even an intervention from Mark Latham: when in the public interest they should have been focusing on substantial policy debate. (across the spectrum, and including the Greens)

The ‘bigger picture’ – what’s really at stake

But there are broader concerns at stake in this election: and neither the government nor the Opposition seem to be planning ahead more than maybe a term or two. Labor’s commitment to the National Broadband Network, school infrastructure and increased employer superannuation contributions are very notable exceptions. (although the problem of a two-tiered Aged Pension remains with regard to superannuation – as always) And as we will see, Labor’s policies are more sustainable in a social sense over the long term.

To begin, there are structural fiscal challenges associated with the ageing of Australia’s population, and what this means for health, aged care and welfare: with flow-on effects elsewhere, including transport infrastructure and education.

At the outset, therefore, it is important to note Abbott’s commitment to cutting the tax base beyond what is sustainable, including effective cuts in overall Company Tax beyond what has been promised by Labor, and the scrapping of the Resource-Rent (ie: mining) tax that rightly gives taxpayers a share of the benefit from exploitation of minerals and other resources that belong to all of us. As a consequence, increases in employer superannuation contributions would also be dropped under an Abbott government. http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-says-libs-wont-increase-super-levy-20100504-u7a3.html

Further, Abbott’s parental leave plan promises to direct what sparse budget funds remain away from where they are needed most: welfare, health, education; in a move that will effectively see those on lower incomes subsidising those on higher incomes. Specifically, the program would “cost more than $8 billion during its first two years”, and a mother on an income as high as $75,000 would receive six months leave at full pay. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2972436.htm

Australia needs progressive tax reform, with the aim being to support an expanded social wage to ensure certain ‘baseline’ needs are met for all of us. This must encompass health (including aged care), welfare, education and other areas such as communications and information, social housing, social recreation facilities and transport.

Without reform, as the proportion of our population outside the taxable labour market increases, shortfalls in social services will become increasingly critical. Here also a ‘two-tiered’ and polarised system comprising the market and a residual public social wage will deepen: what John Kenneth Galbraith encapsulated with the term “private affluence, public squalor’.

The crisis is further compounded by a rising cost of living: especially in areas such as water and energy – where the public are now paying the price for privatisation. And with high property prices the impact of interest rates when they rise is magnified as a legacy of the Howard-era housing bubble, with home ownership now out of reach for many.

To put none too fine a point on it, without progressive tax reform there just won’t be enough public money.

So public hospital waiting lists will worsen; dental care will remain inaccessible for many, and there won’t be enough money to include crucial medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Public education will continue to be chronically under-resourced as compared to privileged private establishments.

Insufficient public funds, here, will undermine even the meagre liberal principle of ‘equal opportunity’; disadvantaging less-privileged citizens, and failing to provide for the demands of an ever-evolving economy.

And again: whatever short-term commitments Abbott makes on mental health; a dwindling pool of public funds under the Liberals will translate into savage austerity elsewhere. An example of this is Abbott’s dumping of plans for ‘Super Clinics’ which would take pressure from desperately over-stretched public hospitals. Or else mental health commitments will themselves be fudged on over the longer term.

Other consequences could include insufficient public funds for infrastructure such as roads and public transport.

In keeping with this logic, we may see a further deepening of the ‘user pays’ principle. Where access to such infrastructure and services takes this form, and is levied at a flat rate, those on lower incomes are again disadvantaged or even excluded entirely.

Tendencies towards labour market polarisation also mean that there are many who are adversely affected by this deepening of ‘user pays’, especially in the absence of a sufficient social wage.

What we certainly don’t want in this country is a slippery slide towards an American-style polarised labour market, with the material needs and rights of citizens undercut further as a consequence of only-threadbare social services and protections.

And again: a strong social wage is necessary to provide a fair baseline with regards access to services and amenities; and to make up for distributive injustices that arise as a consequence of unequal bargaining power amongst workers in the labour market.

Abbott in strategic play regarding some of our most vulnerable

Abbott has provided strategic policy announcements in areas of special concern to the public. Although the overall picture under Abbott would be one of savage austerity, the would-be Prime Minister has attempted to trump Labor with announcements of funding for mental health and aged care.

In aged care the Opposition has pledged a “$935 million package” including “21 days of convalescence care for around 20,000 eligible patients at a cost of $300 million”, “$14 million for pet therapy programs”, and “$12 million to promote wellbeing and funding for companionship programs.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/01/2970226.htm

And in mental health Abbott has promised a $1.5 billion package including “800 new hospital beds”, “$440 million for the creation of 20 Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres” and “$225m would be allocated to build 60 Headspace services - treatment centres for young people.” http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stories/tony-abbotts-mental-health-strike/story-e6frg12l-1225886499800

Importantly, though, experts remain critical. Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) spokesperson Yvonne Chaperon has highlighted insufficient wages for qualified aged care nurses, with the consequence of many skilled professionals leaving the system. In turn, this leaves aged care facilities with an insufficient skills mix. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/01/2970226.htm

And Australian Medical Association (AMA) president Dr Andrew Pesce has slammed Abbott’s proposal to cut Labor’s $98.4 million in incentive payments for GPs to provide services in aged care homes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/01/2970226.htm

This is an area of desperate need for those in aged care.

In the bigger picture it is well worth noting that the Australian economy is valued well over AUS $1 Trillion.

The commitments of the major parties seem paltry in this context. Quality of services in aged care and mental health fall way short of the real human need, and that needed to uphold human dignity for our most vulnerable. Across the political spectrum parties are ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’ for desperately needed funds in these and other critical areas: but few confront the need for progressive tax reform to turn the situation around.

Nevertheless and again:, despite shortcomings Abbott appears so far to have ‘trumped’ Labor in these sensitive areas. In effect he is challenging Labor on its own traditional terrain of Health services. Labor cannot afford to cede this terrain: the consequence of doing so would be to lose crucial credibility and support.

Perhaps the best response would be for Labor to announce a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Such a scheme would need to be implemented in a fashion which valued and promoted the human worth and social participation of recipients. And in freeing up crucial additional funds, further action would become possible: reform of pensions and disability services: as well as commitments to mental health and aged care.

Conclusion

There are many reasons to vote against Abbott in the coming election: and not only those already alluded to in this essay.

Abbott has no credibility on the environment, having famously proclaimed that “climate change is crap.” And despite the conservatives’ emphasis on internal ALP division, the Liberal Party itself remains divided – as Malcolm Turnbull and others remain philosophically committed to a price on carbon. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html

Further, Abbott remains committed to the spirit of WorkChoices, despite proclaiming the policy “dead”. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/shades-of-latham-in-abbotts-ir-stunt-20100720-10i4t.html

As Abbott himself stated “the word WorkChoices is dead”. But even if a Liberal government did not change the existing legislation, it could legislate outside that framework, effectively circumventing it regardless. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/17/2956429.htm

Crucially, Abbott is ‘running scared’ from a debate with Julia Gillard on the economy. Wanting to rely on pre-existing prejudices in the electorate, the last thing he wants is to provide Labor a platform from whch to spruik the ‘good news’: recession avoided as a consequence of Labor stimulus, interest rates low, and investment in education in infrastructure essential to the future of our economy. And then there’s Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN), and its crucial role in paving the way for the future knowledge economy.

Abbott’s claim to greater ‘competency’ in managing the economy doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. And anyway: politics concerns values: matters such as distributive justice and compassion for the poor and oppressed that run deeper than “technocratic management.”

Finally: as we have considered in depth here already, Abbott is attempting to deceive us with a “sleight of hand” on austerity. He wants us to focus on conservative initiatives on mental health and aged care: but in doing so he wants to distract us from savage austerity elsewhere – health, education, infrastructure, welfare – cuts that could spiral into the tens of billions.

Labor is not yet committed to tax and social wage reform of the scale that this author is fighting for. But the difference between Labor and the Conservatives is tens of billions in austerity, the abandonment of crucial infrastructure such as the NBN, an uncertain future on industrial relations, and an outdated neo-liberal economic outlook that would have seen Australia into recession if Abbott had had his way.

Vote 1 for Labor; or for the Greens: but for Australia’s sake put the Liberals and Nationals last.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.  see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Also this article will be re-appearing in On Line Opinion on August 10 - pls feel welcome to comment and discuss these issues there and then as well! :))

'Battlelines' - what’s Tony Abbott really about?

 

above: an image of Tony Abbott

 

Tristan Ewins searches for the 'real Tony Abbott' interrogating the arguments and values presented in the Australian Conservative Opposition Leader's 'manifesto', "Battlelines" from a progressive perspective. 

AND ALSO: If you enjoy this article PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

By Tristan Ewins

For those interested in understanding the political thinking behind the politically-resurgent Tony Abbott, they could do worse than to read about the “Abbott agenda” as proclaimed by the man himself in his manifesto, Battlelines.

Abbott begins by proclaiming himself “the pragmatist”. “Ideology”, after all, has become something of a dirty word in western democracies - associated with such “evils” as socialism: compared with which neo-liberal practice is “objectively” sound economic management (please note the irony).

By contrast Abbott portrays his “pragmatism” as a fluidity of policy responses to political and economic contingency: but for which conservative values remain fixed. And in this context - Abbott sees conservatism in the sense of respect for Western traditions and institutions as both wise and practical.

For Abbott “Ideologues want to impose their values on others” while “pragmatists want to solve … problems as long as the cure is not worse than the disease” (p.xi).

While this is a clever piece of rhetorical posturing, critical minds might point to the dominance of neo-liberal ideology in Australia and world-wide without care for the real world consequences.

Interestingly, Abbott raises the opposition between compassionate conservatism and the kind of ruthless neo-liberalism that cares nothing for the social consequences of austerity (pp.xii-xiii). Here the author juxtaposes the “[single-minded] cutting [of] public expenditure … striving to deliver smaller government” to “compassionate conservatism, stressing solidarity with those who are doing it tough” (pp.xii-xiii). By this reckoning the “social fabric … has to be respected and preserved”, while individuals should enjoy such circumstances that they are “empowered, as far as reasonably possible, to live the life that he or she thinks best” (p.xii).

Abbott’s proclaimed support for those doing it tough might be traced to the influence of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) early on in his life. While the DLP helped shut Labor out of government for decades, and to this day retains a socially-illiberal outlook, its Catholic origins were such that there remained a measure of compassion for workers, and for the poor (p.10).

Regardless of whether this stance is a political ploy, or whether it echoes Abbott’s true sentiment, Abbott is captive to the Liberal political machine. The Opposition has tried to undermine the stimulus without regard that this would compromise the recovery from the global financial crisis. They have fear-mongered about tax and trade unions. Ruthless neo-liberalism remains the dominant current within the parties of the Australian Right - and should the Coalition be elected later this year, it is very likely that this would be reflected in policy.

This opposition between “compassionate conservatism” and what I call “ruthless neo-liberalism” is one that Abbott attempts to dispel later on, but for those of us interested in interrogating the contradictions of the Australian Right, the issue demands greater attention.

We will return to this theme later.

Abbott attempts to mould an image of conservative and liberal impulses as interlocked and complementary. He emphasises this again and again.

But there are other conflicts at work also. Even within the broad gamut of liberalism, there is division between social liberalism (concerned with social justice) and economic neo-liberalism (utterly indifferent to it).

For Abbott there is the practical imperative to reconcile competing currents in the parties of the Australian Right to present the kind of “united front” needed to win the confidence of voters. And there is also the need for Abbott to pitch his message broadly, to maximise his support base.

For his own part, Abbott does not show respect or recognition for many of the marginalised and the oppressed. He speaks of his experience in student politics: mocking his then-rivals on the Left as being typified by an outlook of “Land Rights for Gay Whales” (p.12).

There remains within Abbott a sense of injustice - perhaps even outrage - at the marginalisation of Conservative forces within the broader student political sphere at that time. As he writes: “the student paper wouldn’t print conservative arguments” (p.13).

Fast forwards to today and the Conservative parties in government passed legislation (so-called “Voluntary Student Unionism”) which hindered student self-organisation, and especially the position of the Left. This also had the added impact of draining the lifeblood of student culture from campuses all over the country.

Here, it must also be emphasised that the position of the Left has itself been broader than the “identity politics” held up to ridicule by Abbott. Student poverty and the imposition of increasingly onerous fees have for decades been flashpoints of concern for the student movement.

Perhaps student culture and organisations should have been more inclusive. But the extreme outcome of voluntary student unionism which, in effect, shut down student organisations was never a legitimate answer.

Abbott attacks unions often in Battlelines raising that same “bogey” which has figured in conservative fear-mongering in Australia since time immemorial.  But workers need self-organisation to have the industrial strength to bargain effectively and maintain wages, conditions and rights. Weakened unions, combined with deregulated labour markets means exploitation and a poor deal for workers.

WorkChoices took away unfair dismissal provisions; took away the “no disadvantage test” in enterprise bargaining; removed the right of workers to withdraw their labour except under the strictest of circumstances; and outlawed “pattern bargaining”. Removal of the right to pattern bargaining in itself promised a race to the bottom in wages and conditions for Australian workers.

It says something of the real underlying sources of economic and political power in Australia that much of the WorkChoices agenda has been maintained by Rudd Labor- despite broad opposition among the public. The legitimate electoral power of ordinary Australians has not been able to stand against the economic power of an aggressive employer lobby.

The only hope ordinary Australians have of reversing the long-term trend is to organise independently. But the critical point, especially with a Federal election looming later this year, is that Abbott cannot be trusted on industrial relations.

Labor is torn between its union base, and the pressure applied by employers, but the Conservatives and neo-liberals still want to crush the union movement, and will not be nearly as inhibited. Should the Conservatives get their way, ultimately there would be no labour movement to resist their agenda into the future.

Conservative disdain for the rights of workers in Australia dovetails with a broader scepticism about social and distributive justice. Abbott makes the usual noises about “soaking the rich” only being able to be taken so far (p.80). And for Abbott spending cuts were justified in order to “allow lower taxes” and “give more incentive to people who could create wealth” (p.81).

But the truth is that under the Howard government - in which Abbott was a key Minister - the tax mix became increasingly regressive. There was the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Massive superannuation concessions were provided which mainly benefitted the wealthy, and there was regressive restructure of income tax; with the tax free threshold remaining fixed. These policies impacted against those on lower incomes.

Low taxes and small government do not necessarily mean a “bigger economic pie”. All workers create wealth regardless of incentives in the form of tax cuts. In reality, it is possible to gear the economy to something approximating full capacity without gross exploitation, a gutted public sector, or ever lower and more regressive taxes.

In the coming Federal election Labor could do worse than to challenge the Liberals on the issue of distributive justice, engaging with Henry Tax Review recommendations, and restructuring the tax mix in favour of most Australians - especially for the most vulnerable.

Abbott himself is incredulous that families on combined annual incomes of $150,000 are considered “rich”, and thus opposes means-testing benefits such as the Private Health Insurance rebate (p.94).

But most families are not receiving incomes in this vicinity. To provide for the educational, welfare, infrastructure and health-related needs of ordinary Australians - and especially the most vulnerable - restructuring and targeting the social expenditure mix could be vital. And for deep and meaningful progress, tax reform would need to target a broad enough cross-section to fund the necessary social expenditure programs.

In his “manifesto” Abbott concedes that Australia’s conservatives were wrong to oppose Medicare. As long as bulk billing is not “absolute” or “total”, there remain, as he says, “price signals in the system” (p.143). But government subsidies make most general health services affordable for all. Basically “collective consumption” via Medicare works better and is fairer than the free-for-all of US-style health care system.

In the same spirit, Abbott needs to be open minded about social wage expansion. Provision of “universal dental care through Medicare”, which Abbott identifies as having cost $4 billion if it was implemented in 2007, should receive bipartisan support (p.144).

While Abbott identifies such a program as being very expensive, a practical Opposition Leader would not obsess about small government (p.144). The Australian economy, after all, is valued at well over $1 trillion. Rather, they would realise that collective consumption provides better value for taxpayers and consumers, and provides access on the basis of genuine need for people who would otherwise be excluded.

Should Abbott genuinely prefer to adopt a “compassionate conservative” persona - as opposed to one of “ruthless neo-liberalism” - he could do worse than engage with these issues, and break the taboo against progressive tax and social expenditure reform.

Drawing to the conclusion of this critique, it must be conceded that there are many dimensions of the “Abbott manifesto” that I have not covered. But I will try and make some observations prior to closing.

In Battlelines Abbott continues to support positions which could be at best described as controversial for the Australian public.

He tries to justify Australian participation in the Second Gulf War despite questions surrounding its legality, and the false pretences (for example, “weapons of mass destruction”). And he does not acknowledge the terrible and enduring human cost.

He supports increasing the retirement age to 70 without recognising the difficulties this would mean for manual workers, or for older Australians to re-skill. This is also aside from the “human dimension” in this context. Even if taxes must rise to support an ageing population, after a lifetime at work older Australians should have the freedom to develop their human potential. Possibilities include study, civic activism, engagement in creative arts, and quality time with family.

He supports “punitive welfare”, especially “work for the dole”, appealing to “dark and judgmental” tendencies in the electorate. This is without addressing the failure of student payments and job search allowances to provide even for the bare necessities. And when students work part-time to support themselves the distraction could compromise their study.

He lauds the centrality of civil society as opposed to the state, yet he provides no account of the Howard government’s bullying of charities, threatening to revoke their tax-free status should they criticise government policy.

For those desperately ill who cannot afford potentially life-saving medication not included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), he refers to their pleas as “political blackmail” (p.5). What price a person’s life?

Truly practical politics would balance collectivist and individualist impulses and currents; and would balance and mediate between civil society and state.

By contrast, it is neo-liberal ideology which blinds the Conservatives - and to a lesser extent Labor - to the benefits of a democratic and mixed economy; a strong social wage and progressive tax system; and robust protections for the rights of workers.

But again, and in conclusion: should Tony Abbott fully embrace the “compassionate conservative” persona over that of “ruthless neo-liberalism”, this could precipitate a “political sea change” of benefit to workers, and also for those most vulnerable.

THAT would be a worthwhile legacy.

Battlelines by Tony Abbott, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2009.

and again: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. 


see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Unions and Labor: is Dean Mighell right?

above: A union protest against the draconian industrial laws of the former Australian Howard Conservative government.

nb: what follows is a response to a call from unionist Dean Mighell for unions to disaffiliate 'en masse' from the Australian Labor Party.  Also considered is the future of parties of the relative right in Australia, and the need to contest the 'common sense' of Australian politics...

By Tristan Ewins

Left-wing State Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (Victorian branch), Dean Mighell, dropped something of a political bombshell recently, arguing in an essay that appeared in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald for unions to disaffiliate from the Australian Labor Party.

This stand has developed against a backdrop where Mighell had been condemned as a maverick by powerful figures within the Australian Labor Party: a figure whose militancy threatened to “spook” swinging voters. The cynical might suppose the expulsion of Mighell from the ALP in 2007 was really about setting to rest the “bogey” of militant unionism. Unfortunately, few in the ALP leadership seem to recognise that the real problem is that union militancy is considered a “bogey” at all: this in a context where the rights of labour have been severely curtailed in violation of International Labor Organisation (ILO) conventions to which Australia is a signatory. Mighell himself has referred to provisions against pattern bargaining - among other areas.

Dean Mighell’s call for a more independent Australian labour movement will have upset many powerbrokers within the Australian Labor Party. And there will be ordinary members who also feel Rudd Labor’s spirit of compromise - including accommodation of corporate interests when it comes to Industrial Relations - is the only way to achieve anything.

Even though the ACTU represents almost two million workers, the power of capital is hardwired into the political and economic systems. It is the “elephant in the room” that no one dares acknowledge openly: both because of the dominance of capitalist ideology, and for fear of antagonising corporate interests, including monopoly media, who have the power to make or break any government. Although liberal democratic ideology permeates Australian society, democratic practice is fatally compromised by this state of affairs.

But workers have power as well, as the ACTU showed in the run-up to the 2007 Federal election in Australia, when its campaign against the conservative Howard government’s repressive WorkChoices industrial relations legislation helped bring that government down.

Given the importance of the ACTU campaign in bringing about the demise of the Howard government, one would have thought unions would enjoy more influence under Rudd Labor than has turned out to be the case. Instead there has been one disappointment after another.

Most glaringly, before its election, Rudd Labor committed itself to an “Award modernisation” process through which (supposedly) no worker would be worse off. For those who are not familiar with “Awards”, they comprise minimum standards for wages and conditions under Australian industrial relations law. In the process of “simplifying” the Award system it is now clear that many workers may be worse off, in both their wages and in their working conditions.

For example, in September 2009, Melbourne newspaper The Age revealed that some airline industry employees would “lose between $70 and $300 a week from their base pay”.

And in January 2010 the Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) warned that, “thousands of aged-care nurses working in age care homes in Queensland and NSW will be forced out of the industry due to a wage decision that could see them $300 a week worse off.” Importantly here, undermining the position of skilled aged care nurses in the sector could also lead to a reduction in quality of care for vulnerable and elderly residents of aged care facilities.

Many varied and complex Awards may be more difficult to administer. But it can be reasonably argued that this is an acceptable price to pay for fairness. And arguments about complexity can comprise a “fig leaf of legitimacy” behind which lurks an agenda of undermining the rights of workers.
Which brings us to Mighell’s call for unions to disaffiliate from Labor.

Mighell is right to call for strategic thinking from unions when it comes to relations with the ALP. Too often ALP strategists and power-brokers take union and grassroots support for granted. The conference process is often abused, stage-managed and manipulated in a fashion which silences grassroots voices, leaving many disillusioned, and threatening to demobilise Labor’s organisational and support base over the long term.

What should unions do?

The worth of direct organisational affiliation of unions to the ALP in Australia has been called into question because, with the abuse of the Conference process, old channels of policy influence for unions are effectively annulled.

For many it seems that all that is left is a “carving up of the spoils” of safe Labor seats and other related career paths. Some figures genuinely try to work within these channels for what is right, but often the interests of ordinary workers and union members seem to be forgotten in this process.

Mighell posits, as an alternative to the labourist tradition in Australia which involves direct organisational affiliation of unions with the ALP, the example of unions in the United States. He notes the attempts by organised labour in the US to influence the position of both Democratic and Republican candidates: backing those who are ultimately more sympathetic to their interests. The conditions prevalent in the US are, however, are radically at variance with Australian conditions.

With the exception of minor centrist and left-of-centre parties such as the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens, the prevalent Australian political conditions have been those of a two-party system. For much of the modern history of Australia, thus, the political milieu has taken the form of polarisation between conservative parties, and the Australian Labor Party as the “political wing” of the Australian labour movement.

In recent decades this polarisation has further exacerbated deeply ingrained prejudices in Australia’s Conservative parties against organised labour.

While sometimes paying lip-service to the idea that organised labour in Australia rightly deserves some minimal regime of rights, the real outlook from the hard-right leadership of Australia’s Conservative parties today is one of pursuing the destruction of the organisational and social base of their main political rival. This takes the form not only of attempts to defeat the ALP and the broader Left electorally, but to forever “break the back” of organised labour and create a “free for all” when it comes to the wages and conditions of Australian workers - a move which could create a “downward spiral” in this regard.

That said, can this state of affairs be altered?

The Liberal Party in Australia was not always so dominated by factions of the “hard right” as is the case today. Figures such as Ian MacPhee, who were purged from the parliamentary party in the period from the 1980s to 1990, represented a kind of progressive social liberalism for which there was a real and legitimate role for unions, as well as a preference for a mixed economy. Added to this was some genuine support for the principles of social justice, and the rights of refugees. Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has also since emerged as a consistent and powerful critic of the dominant hard right of the party he once led.

But if this state of affairs is to be challenged, it will be a long, hard struggle. The challenge is not merely one of organisational and cultural reform inside the Liberal Party. There is a struggle at the level of popular and academic culture: a struggle for the “common sense” of Australian politics. This is the struggle to define those “invisible boundaries” of the contested “relative centre”: those boundaries which most political players are compelled to observe in mainstream debate for fear of electoral backlash.

Against this backdrop, Australia needs decent and progressively minded activists not only within the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and various progressive movements, but also fighting for the soul of the Liberal Party - for that strain of social liberalism which that party’s hard right has sought so ruthlessly to marginalise, uproot and destroy.

That said, organised labour in Australia needs to take note of these conditions, and what this implies for the interests of their members, and for the social democratic and democratic socialist values which they espouse.
Influencing Labor Party policy should remain an important focus of organised labour in Australia. But unless unions are willing to “play hard ball”, Labor power brokers will continue to take their support for granted, resulting in a further decline in union influence.

Unions must remain independent of parliamentary Labor as much as is necessary to retain a genuine, strong and independent voice and power, beyond that accommodated by purely electoral politics, and the opportunism this involves. By providing a genuinely independent voice in this context, unions could contribute to a shift of the relative centre in favour of social justice and the rights of labour.

By the same token - if unions merely echo the positions of parliamentary Labor this will create a political “vicious circle” by which right-wing “opinion makers” in the mainstream media, and consistently opportunistic power-brokers set the terms of debate: ultimately shifting the “relative centre” deeper into the confines of an economically neo-liberal, and socially illiberal ideology.

That is not to deny that politicians need to compromise in the pursuit of electoral success. It is to insist that this can only be justified as a means to a greater and more principled end.

Looking beyond purely electoral politics, there is also the prospect of organised labour again realising its true and independent social power. A labour movement which systematically educates, involves and mobilises its members; and which applies its power and militancy effectively in strategic sectors; is more likely to achieve leverage, and secure a more favourable compromise at the policy table.

Over the long term, hopefully, such conditions would progressively “feed into” the prospects of a rejuvenated and emboldened Australian social democracy.

By contrast, a purely defensive labour movement, afraid to take a stand and staging a constant “rear guard action”, may continue to decline in the face of an aggressive employer lobby. This has already been the case over recent decades - with employer demands for ever greater “flexibility” in wages and conditions, and brutal sanctions meant to destroy the legal rights of workers to withdraw their labour.

In this context: there are some individual unions which have already “broken away” from Labor Party affiliation. But a more co-ordinated response could perhaps yield better results.

There has been talk, recently, of financial worries for the ALP’s organisational wing. This being the case, in the short-term, the ACTU could do well to realise the strategic worth of its affiliated member organisations. Unions must demand that Rudd Labor deliver on its promise that no worker would be worse off under a “modernised” Award system. And unions must also collectively and in unison demand legislation - or whatever other moves are necessary - to restore and improve the relative wages and conditions of the most low paid and vulnerable workers. These were frozen, and so declined in real terms, in the last decision of Howard-era Fair Pay Commission in 2009.

Finally, unions must secure an iron-clad commitment from Labor that obstacles to pattern bargaining will be removed should Labor win the next Federal election.

Federal Labor’s capitulation on the rights of labour has obviously gone too far. And it is reasonable that unions now seek redress. At the same time, the ACTU might, from a position of strength, wish to negotiate as a bloc for a limited but meaningful reduction in ALP affiliation fees. This could free the resources of organised labour in Australia to run its own independent campaigns: and also shift resources to those political forces in a position to make a less compromised defence of the rights and interests of workers. Specifically, this could involve strategic support for candidates from the Australian Greens, and other candidates who have real prospect of success - with an established record of support for working people.

Increased public funding for all significant political parties in Australia could, in this context, ensure that all players still retain the means to get their message across. The hope is that organised labour in Australia could make progress - instead of being taken for granted - if unions collectively stopped “putting all their eggs” in the ALP (Australian Labor Party) basket.

Perhaps the most telling of Mighell’s observations in his recent essay was his condemnation of the sentiment of so many union leaders that the ALP is the “main game”, with the broader labour movement relegated to a secondary role.

Having Labor in power matters, but it must be viewed in the context of a broader movement, and a genuine and realisable agenda for social change.

Mobilised, educated, and organised workers have real power. It is time labour movement leaders helped working people realise this power - rather than compromising everything to satiate the demands of an aggressive employer lobby, and for the sake of the parliamentary Labor Party’s short term standing in the polls.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.



see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565