The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Campaign cheques Labor can't cash
TRANSPORT Workers Union official Tony Sheldon tells us millions of dollars that employers paid into a fighting fund are used to protect his members against the evils of the Government's workplace reforms. So that's all right then. Well, no, it's not.

For a start, there is the question of whether the companies that kicked the TWU tin received anything in return, such as a sympathetic hearing from the union during negotiations and disputes, making it a case of cash for quiet. And then there is the issue of whose interests this deal served, workers whose labour may have been used as political pawns by their leaders, or the officials who decided what the money would be spent on. Mr Sheldon's statement on the Nine Network's Sunday program yesterday that the money was spent on campaigns to win "better conditions for working families in our industries" is imprecise, at best. As was his response to questions on whether money from the fund is assisting ALP candidates' campaigns. Mr Sheldon says that if any cash was used to assist the Labor candidate who replaced retired Victorian premier Steve Bracks, he does not know about it. This is not the same as a denial, especially as he also said that he didn't apologise for getting "people elected who support the principles of the union". And the last-ditch defence he presented during last week, that the claims about the fighting fund are mischief-making by a rival union, is plainly pathetic. The issue that matters is whether the allegations are correct, not where they come from.

Rusted on Labor loyalists may wonder what the fuss is about. Certainly Kevin Rudd has not come over all outraged and denounced Mr Sheldon in the way he got stuck into union officials Dean Mighell and Joe McDonald, who are exiled from the Labor Party for the way they have attempted to intimidate employers. Perhaps this is because the Opposition Leader does not believe Mr Sheldon has done anything wrong - there is certainly no suggestion that either he or his officials have stood over employers while they wrote cheques for the TWU fighting fund - or anything illegal with the money. Perhaps it is because Mr Sheldon is a senior figure in the industrial movement and as such, a far more powerful player than the blustering Mr Mighell and the bragging Mr McDonald, who both carry on as if they are about to fight their own private class wars. Perhaps Labor's campaign bean-counters are hoping for more help from the TWU, especially when the union has topped up its war chest with business contributions. Or perhaps Mr Rudd simply assumes that questions about what Mr Sheldon does with the TWU pork barrel will go away if everybody on the Labor side sticks to the script - that it is all about protecting "working families" from the Government's workplace laws.

Maybe these questions will go away. The businesses that contributed to the TWU fighting fund are not likely to complain. And aggrieved rank and file workers cannot hope to compete with the powerful leaders of a rich union who are used to doing what they like. Mr Rudd has done a good job to date in diverting attention away from what his party's links to the unions will mean if Labor wins the election, and it is a fair bet that he will be discouraging interest in Mr Sheldon's inadequate answers. But the TWU fighting fund presents us all with one issue too important to ignore - the grim determination of the Opposition's union allies to destroy workplace deregulation. With private sector membership around 15 per cent, union leaders are desperate to see Labor win the election and reinstate some of their authority over the workforce. Unless this occurs, the ACTU will be permanently reduced to a rump of public sector unions and the few remaining easily organised industries with large, blue-collar workforces. For old-fashioned unionists who genuinely believe that the decline of organised labour leaves low-skilled workers open to exploitation, this is bad enough. For career officials who see their own ambitions being ended if there are fewer and smaller unions to run, anything other than a compliant Labor government after the election will be a disaster. When they talk about protecting "working families", the phrase includes their own. This is all understandable but it does not justify the way unions such as the TWU assume their institutional interests are synonymous with those of their members. If union members support their officials spending money on political campaigns, fair enough. But the primary job of any union is to represent the immediate interests of its members, not to make deals with employers to fund political campaigns. This whole affair renews long-standing questions about the way unions operate in politics, and in whose interest. It also raises three new ones only Mr Rudd can answer. How much has the TWU fighting fund donated to Labor? Given the Labor leader ordered the return of donations from Mr Mighell's union, will he send cheques from Mr Sheldon's fighting fund back? And if not, why not?

Hi Olgs

On the Libs advertising budget. It's worse than you think. They've taken to relaunching programs launched months ago. For example JH 'reannounced' funding for the AFL - and 'relaunched' an employment program Joe Hockey launched months ago.

If Nov 24 is the day that means we can expect government grants for race horses on the first tuesday in November...

This article from The Australian.

Editors are meant to be intelligent people...and this one comes up with nothing but hot air - I'm amazed at just how poorly it's written. Maybe he's starting to swing Labor's way but Murdoch ordered him to try and get Howard elected...it's the only explanation for something as bizarre as this piece that could have been written by a first year journalism student.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22509101-16741,00.html

Quote:

Campaign cheques Labor can't cash
TRANSPORT Workers Union official Tony Sheldon tells us millions of dollars that employers paid into a fighting fund are used to protect his members against the evils of the Government's workplace reforms. So that's all right then. Well, no, it's not.

For a start, there is the question of whether the companies that kicked the TWU tin received anything in return, such as a sympathetic hearing from the union during negotiations and disputes, making it a case of cash for quiet. And then there is the issue of whose interests this deal served, workers whose labour may have been used as political pawns by their leaders, or the officials who decided what the money would be spent on. Mr Sheldon's statement on the Nine Network's Sunday program yesterday that the money was spent on campaigns to win "better conditions for working families in our industries" is imprecise, at best. As was his response to questions on whether money from the fund is assisting ALP candidates' campaigns. Mr Sheldon says that if any cash was used to assist the Labor candidate who replaced retired Victorian premier Steve Bracks, he does not know about it. This is not the same as a denial, especially as he also said that he didn't apologise for getting "people elected who support the principles of the union". And the last-ditch defence he presented during last week, that the claims about the fighting fund are mischief-making by a rival union, is plainly pathetic. The issue that matters is whether the allegations are correct, not where they come from.

Rusted on Labor loyalists may wonder what the fuss is about. Certainly Kevin Rudd has not come over all outraged and denounced Mr Sheldon in the way he got stuck into union officials Dean Mighell and Joe McDonald, who are exiled from the Labor Party for the way they have attempted to intimidate employers. Perhaps this is because the Opposition Leader does not believe Mr Sheldon has done anything wrong - there is certainly no suggestion that either he or his officials have stood over employers while they wrote cheques for the TWU fighting fund - or anything illegal with the money. Perhaps it is because Mr Sheldon is a senior figure in the industrial movement and as such, a far more powerful player than the blustering Mr Mighell and the bragging Mr McDonald, who both carry on as if they are about to fight their own private class wars. Perhaps Labor's campaign bean-counters are hoping for more help from the TWU, especially when the union has topped up its war chest with business contributions. Or perhaps Mr Rudd simply assumes that questions about what Mr Sheldon does with the TWU pork barrel will go away if everybody on the Labor side sticks to the script - that it is all about protecting "working families" from the Government's workplace laws.

Maybe these questions will go away. The businesses that contributed to the TWU fighting fund are not likely to complain. And aggrieved rank and file workers cannot hope to compete with the powerful leaders of a rich union who are used to doing what they like. Mr Rudd has done a good job to date in diverting attention away from what his party's links to the unions will mean if Labor wins the election, and it is a fair bet that he will be discouraging interest in Mr Sheldon's inadequate answers. But the TWU fighting fund presents us all with one issue too important to ignore - the grim determination of the Opposition's union allies to destroy workplace deregulation. With private sector membership around 15 per cent, union leaders are desperate to see Labor win the election and reinstate some of their authority over the workforce. Unless this occurs, the ACTU will be permanently reduced to a rump of public sector unions and the few remaining easily organised industries with large, blue-collar workforces. For old-fashioned unionists who genuinely believe that the decline of organised labour leaves low-skilled workers open to exploitation, this is bad enough. For career officials who see their own ambitions being ended if there are fewer and smaller unions to run, anything other than a compliant Labor government after the election will be a disaster. When they talk about protecting "working families", the phrase includes their own. This is all understandable but it does not justify the way unions such as the TWU assume their institutional interests are synonymous with those of their members. If union members support their officials spending money on political campaigns, fair enough. But the primary job of any union is to represent the immediate interests of its members, not to make deals with employers to fund political campaigns. This whole affair renews long-standing questions about the way unions operate in politics, and in whose interest. It also raises three new ones only Mr Rudd can answer. How much has the TWU fighting fund donated to Labor? Given the Labor leader ordered the return of donations from Mr Mighell's union, will he send cheques from Mr Sheldon's fighting fund back? And if not, why not?

It's certainly unusual for employers to contribute to a trade union fighting fund. Do you know which employers were involved, vikorr? (Sounds rather BLF-ish! )

Mind you, this is example seems rather small fry compared to the government/Liberal Party using millions of taxpayers' funds to push its campaign!

TRANSPORT Workers Union official Tony Sheldon tells us millions of dollars that employers paid into a fighting fund are used to protect his members against the evils of the Government's workplace reforms. So that's all right then. Well, no, it's not.

For a start, there is the question of whether the companies that kicked the TWU tin received anything in return,

such as a sympathetic hearing from the union during negotiations and disputes, making it a case of cash for quiet.

And then there is the issue

of whose interests this deal served, workers whose labour may have been used as political pawns by their leaders,

or the officials who decided what the money would be spent on

Mr Sheldon's statement on the Nine Network's Sunday program yesterday that the money was spent on campaigns to win "better conditions for working families in our industries" is imprecise, at best

As was his response to questions on whether money from the fund is assisting ALP candidates' campaigns.

Mr Sheldon says that if any cash was used to assist the Labor candidate who replaced retired Victorian premier Steve Bracks, he does not know about it. This is not the same as a denial, especially as he also said that he didn't apologise for getting "people elected who support the principles of the union"

And the last-ditch defence he presented during last week, that the claims about the fighting fund are mischief-making by a rival union, is plainly pathetic. The issue that matters is whether the allegations are correct, not where they come from.

Rusted on Labor loyalists may wonder what the fuss is about. Certainly Kevin Rudd has not come over all outraged and denounced Mr Sheldon in the way he got stuck into union officials Dean Mighell and Joe McDonald, who are exiled from the Labor Party for the way they have attempted to intimidate employers.

Perhaps this is because the Opposition Leader does not believe Mr Sheldon has done anything wrong - there is certainly no suggestion that either he or his officials have stood over employers while they wrote cheques for the TWU fighting fund - or anything illegal with the money.

Perhaps it is because Mr Sheldon is a senior figure in the industrial movement and as such, a far more powerful player than the blustering Mr Mighell and the bragging Mr McDonald, who both carry on as if they are about to fight their own private class wars.

Perhaps Labor's campaign bean-counters are hoping for more help from the TWU, especially when the union has topped up its war chest with business contributions

Or perhaps Mr Rudd simply assumes that questions about what Mr Sheldon does with the TWU pork barrel will go away if everybody on the Labor side sticks to the script - that it is all about protecting "working families" from the Government's workplace laws.

Maybe these questions will go away.

.....The article goes on and on in this vein. It contains very very little substance, but a lot of blatant diversion and innuendo. Personally I was horrified by the standard of journalism, and I can't say I've ever had that reaction to an article before (of course, my expectations of an editor are much higher)