The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Hmmmm .... Some pretty strange bedfellows just before the last election. Rolling Eyes

And it might be that the Tasmanian CFMEU officials weren't the only ones to compromise their "core beliefs".:

Howard denies swapping training funds for support for the package.:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1477079.htm

0 Replies

Yecccccccccccchhhhhhhhhh.

Shame!

0 Replies

Most union members - okay here comes a sweeping and wild generalisation - are more concerned with jobs than ideology. And I for one don't blame them at all,

I am going to extrapolate that to union leaders. Most union leaders are more concerned with their own jobs than ideology. Again I don't blame them.

Where adherence to ideology guarantees a union leader a Parliamentary (state, territory or commonwealth) sinecure they will so adhere - even in the face of opposition from their soon-to-be erstwhile members.

But where adherence to ideology could lead to their being chucked out of their union position before the aformentioned sinecure comes up then said ideological adherence will be viewed as a career-limiting move.

The Tasmania CFMEU (Forestry Division) secretary depends for his job on meeting his members needs. They pay his salary and benefits, not the ALP.

The Tasmanian CFMEU members are more concerned with their jobs than they are with a muddled ALP policy.

The ALP couldn't guarantee those CFMEU members their jobs.

The ALP loses.

0 Replies

Ah, but nor can Howard guarantee the Tasmanian CFMEU members exemption from his proposed IR "reforms". They will have to cop it sweet like everyone else, if the reforms become law. So they don't win either way. <sigh>

And, according to JH the Tasmanian CFMEU officials were negotiating with BOTH the ALP & the Libs, and accepted the best offer. I don't find that particularly honorable.

I know Latham's Tasmanian "forests policy" was flawed. Cobbled together in a rush to ensure Greens' preferences. (something that wasn't necessary, IMO, as the Greens were hardly going to support the Libs), but I still find the Tasmanian CFMEU's deal with Howard reprehensible for a number of reasons:
1. They allowed themselves to be used by JH (hardly a trusted friend of unions, including their own. Particularly their own.) Those news clips of them applauding Howard dealt the death blow to Latham's campaign & probably convinced more people to vote for the Libs. Even if the Libs had still won, but not so convincingly, I doubt we'd be dealing with so many ruthless "reforms" right now & possibly not a Coalition controlled senate, either.

2. The CFMEU is a very powerful union. I doubt (had Latham actually won the election) that they would have allowed their Tasmanian members to be totally sold down the drain. Alternatives to logging would have had to be found.

3. My opposition to out of control, irresponsible logging in Tasmania. As a result of the CFMEU's deal with Howard this will continue unabated.

4. The fact that Howard was able to prove that even one of the most powerful & militant unions in Oz has it's price. That is so damaging & demoralizing.

5. The fact that this branch of the CFMEU broke ranks with it's national body in doing a deal with Howard. Classic divide & conquer stuff, And now, with the Libs in control of both houses of federal parliament, what good did it do them? What good will it do ANY union if the IR "reforms" are accepted?

0 Replies

I'm on the deb/olga side of things GF. The CFMEU are responsible for a fair hunk of the last election's result. And 3 decent ALP reps lost their seats (Hi Syd!)

Sh1theads. I'm not even sure it's jobs they're concerned about. It smacks of a display of power for power's sake.

And for those who didn't know: the CFMEU is the modern day remnant of the BLF (who remembers them?)

I cursed them back then, so to read the story of their behind-the-scenes JH work confirms a distrust and is, as Olga says, demoralizing.

0 Replies

Points taken msolga and hinge - and points well made. I'm going through my pragmatic phase again I think. I'm looking back at this through the eyes of the average timberworker in Tassie and I'm reflecting on what it should mean for ALP policy now and into the future.

I am stopping myself calling for the return of John Button to work on some industrial policy.

Re the IR policy. Correct me if I'm wrong but this wasn't discussed during the election campaigan was it? If that's right then surely the Tassie union was simply doing its job as it saw it, protecting the interests of its members. I admit I was furious at the time because of the loss of crucial seats as the result of poor policy-making and even worse tactics. But I suppose I'm very wise in hindsight Anyway the CFMEU Forestry people weren't able to foresee this latest piece of devilry from "Honest Johnny" Howard.

Yes the CFMEU is pretty militant. I heard their national secretary John Maitland on AM or PM or the World Today during the last week and he wasn't happy about what he'd found out, but can't do much about it I suppose.

Anyway we shall see if the IR changes are the harbinger of the end of Howard and the Libs in govt. I can only hope so.

0 Replies

I felt for the timber workers, too, gf. (And anyone else whose in danger of losing their job due to "changed market circumstances", "down-sizing", "flexibility initiatives", etc, etc, etc ... Rolling Eyes

) No side dealt with their situation with compassion or foresight, in my opinion. And the only winner was JH! Makes you want to weep, doesn't it? Very Happy

My understanding is that JH felt a sudden surge of confidence about the IR "reforms" only after having control of both houses of parliament. For some reason that made him very cocky indeed! Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

... & speaking of the devil! Evil or Very Mad

:

Howard blinks on IR rules
Steve Lewis, Chief political reporter
October 08, 2005/the Australian

MOST workers shifting to individual contracts will continue to be guaranteed meal breaks and penalty rates under a new "keep what you've got" deal to be unveiled as part of historic changes to industrial relations.

After a concerted ACTU campaign against the proposed IR changes, the Howard Government will soften its package and announce measures to protect workers deciding to stay in the award system. Bosses will also be required to give workers more information about shifting to individual contracts.

In what could turn out to be his final policy frontier, John Howard will tomorrow announce concessions to the biggest industrial relations overhaul since federation.... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16851009%255E601,00.html

0 Replies

I think Steve Fielding may have had some effect here. If so, good for him. I heard him on radio a few times and he made some cogent points and seemed more solid and grounded in principles than Barnaby. It will still be necessary to closely analyse what Howard produces, he is not in the least trustworthy.

Having said that I want to see this attempt by Howard to shaft ordinary people in Australia dumped wholesale.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Re the IR policy. Correct me if I'm wrong but this wasn't discussed during the election campaigan was it? If that's right then surely the Tassie union was simply doing its job as it saw it, protecting the interests of its members. I admit I was furious at the time because of the loss of crucial seats as the result of poor policy-making and even worse tactics. But I suppose I'm very wise in hindsight Anyway the CFMEU Forestry people weren't able to foresee this latest piece of devilry from "Honest Johnny" Howard.

Ah, I see what you're getting at here, gf! I was very distracted by other sad A2K happenings this morning & I guess that I didn't fully take in what you were saying in this post. No, the Tasmanian Forestry workers couldn't possibly know what JH could come up with after winning a another term of government. They could not even be certain who would win the election. Who could at that stage? Almost everyone, including the "experts", were surprised by the degree of support for the Libs.
Anyway, my response is this: How on earth could any union (or arm of a union) trust this man after his history of deceit of the Australian people? I don't think I need to go over all the ways that many of us feel we've been betrayed by this government, yet again. So, what on earth were the leaders of the Tasmanian Forestry branch of the CFMEU thinking, when they did their deal with him? That they were smarter than the entire union movement in Australia & could somehow get an advantage that others couldn't get? <sigh> They got out-foxed by the fox himself! They were out of their depth. Their solutions to their workers' predicament should have been pursued through the Labor movement, not through doing a deal with the devil. I don't blame the forestry workers for what happened, but I certainly have issues with their leadership!

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I think Steve Fielding may have had some effect here. If so, good for him. I heard him on radio a few times and he made some cogent points and seemed more solid and grounded in principles than Barnaby. It will still be necessary to closely analyse what Howard produces, he is not in the least trustworthy.

Having said that I want to see this attempt by Howard to shaft ordinary people in Australia dumped wholesale.

Yes, I've been quite surprised by Fielding, too. And, like you, have been quite impressed by his intelligence & understanding of the plight of workers & their families. It is not all about faith & religion!

Sometimes in politics there are pleasant surprises from unlikely places! Very Happy

0 Replies

To some degree I think union leaders in Australia are going to have to be more pragmatic msolga. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of union members are interested first and foremost in their industrial conditions and a long way behind comes ideology. So a sensible union leader will make sure that they look after their members interests.

Having said that, it's also up to the union leader to think strategically on behalf of the membership. And that might mean taking a risk and educating the membership about why certain issues that might not directly and immediately affect members (ie the usual day to day considerations of the job) are important. One is definitely educating members about why it is always a bad idea to vote for a party which is only interested in the wellbeing of the corporate sector and not the average worker. But they have to be pragmatic and not simply giving voice to ideology for its own sake.

One of the areas I was always interested in was the ACTU championing of
APHEDA which sought to assist workers in other countries. Now this support works on two levels for me. One is that it's a good idea out of a sense of altruism, it is part of the positive ideology of the union movement. But on another level it's a good idea because it will eventually hinder - if not stop - the practice of capital whizzing from country to country in search of the lowest labour costs and therefore the exporting of jobs.

I read a comment recently that workers in India and China are beginning to organise for higher wages (it was a throwaway comment in another discussion forum so it must be taken with a grain of salt) which is a good thing.

So APHEDA link here is important to the Australian movement for two broad reasons. And union leaders should be championing support of APHEDA for both those broad reasons.

That's why I'm saying a good union leader will think and act on both levels.

0 Replies

Unions in developed nations support workers rights in developing nations. You'd like to think it's because of some sort of solidarity, but I think it's actually to level out the playing field. If someone in India is getting time and half saturdays and 17.5% leave loading then an Oz worker can compete. And that's a good thing because it means their conditions are improving.

On the downside: union membership in developed nations is falling fast. Unions can be a damn fine thing. What JH hates(d) about them is that they have been used as a tool in the past to push agendas JH didn't like, and that weren't directly related to workers' income and conditions; like the green bans, and dock bans on nuclear ships etc.

JH is rooted in the past, us people who remember the 70s remember militant unionism (something which pretty much died under the labor government) and JH, I think, remembers it with more clarity than most. He's out to wipe it out of existance. It embarassed him enormously when he was treasurer and don't forget he lost an election in that position. He is one to hold a grudge. God I detest him.

GF said 'a good union leader will think and act on both levels. '

sounds good, but in the past the rank and file supported the leadership because unions were 'a good thing' but to say dockers gave a sh1t about nuclear proliferation (as an example) is a long reach.

I think the line between working for workers rights and exercising political power is very blurred.

Man, this is a discussion that belongs in a pub - not on a bulletin board. Too many thoughts ricocheting.

0 Replies

Interesting though.

Actually, I know lots of union leader folk, and they DO, in many cases, think on many levels. Not all, of course.

Thing is, their world, like that of pollies, is the art of the possible.

An ocker, blinkered, membership is hard to move towards broader thinking. But some unions have done it to some extent.

I hope, BTW, that our Labor boys and girls in Canberra are being very friendly with these Nat etc possible majority breakers.

Schmoozing is an underrated art.....

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

To some degree I think union leaders in Australia are going to have to be more pragmatic msolga. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of union members are interested first and foremost in their industrial conditions and a long way behind comes ideology. So a sensible union leader will make sure that they look after their members interests.

Oh, I couldn't agree more, gf! If more of them did, there wouldn't be such a decline in membership, for a start. But the problem is the leadership of unions, since Kennett at state level here in Victoria & the Libs at the federal level, have become so demoralized that they can't properly perform that function. I'm speaking of Victoria here because that's the situation I know best & I personally experienced the changes as a unionist at the time. And speaking of the union I know best, the AEU (education) in Victoria, it is now so small & has been so ineffectual in stopping the rot of teachers' working conditions that most people don't bother to join & many former members have left. So we now have a much more casualized workforce in schools & the workloads for individuals have increased significantly. The interesting thing is, it's made no difference that Kennett was voted out, the Bracks Labor government has simply continued from where the Libs left off! So we now have a demoralized education workforce, an ineffectual union & little faith that a change of government will improve things.
Why would new (& casualized) teachers bother to join the union? This is the challenge that isn't being addressed in my view: How to effectively organize casualized workers in a corporatized system? Unless these very real concerns are addressed I can't see much future for the AEU, in any case. I would LOVE them to get more pragmatic & creative about how to properly address their members very real conditions related woes! Sad

I suspect this is very similar to what many other public sector unions are experiencing right now. Tough times!

0 Replies

... but even before all of the above happened, we had Hawke & his Accord. In my opinion that's when the decline in union membership actually began. With the push toward those big, amalgamated unions that acted like an arm of the ALP. At that stage ordinary worker in unions became somewhat irrelevant. "Participation" became simply doing what was required by the union leaders. I know there are some good things that came out of this period, but the exclusion of ordinary members from real decision making has had a lasting effect.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

I think the line between working for workers rights and exercising political power is very blurred.

Yes, couldn't agree more, hinge. I can't really separate the two. They're inter-connected.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Unions in developed nations support workers rights in developing nations. You'd like to think it's because of some sort of solidarity, but I think it's actually to level out the playing field. If someone in India is getting time and half saturdays and 17.5% leave loading then an Oz worker can compete. And that's a good thing because it means their conditions are improving.

On the downside: union membership in developed nations is falling fast.

Capital is now organized very effectively on the global level to maximise profit for huge corporations, often at the expense of workers' jobs in developed countries. Transferring jobs to say, India, or the Philippines from say, Australia, is obviously a huge money spinner for a big business which doesn't have to worry too much about union awards & reasonable conditions for workers. In the short term, yes, this is an improvement in the wages & conditions in of say, workers in India. However, in the long-run, labour is going to have to organize internationally, too. Both to get a fairer deal for the cheaper sources of labour in under-developed countries & to ensure that the workers standards of living in "developed" countries are not constantly eroded & undermined. I think it's inevitable that this will happen. I foresee the possibility of, say, a huge international telecommunications union representing workers from all over the world. I don't think that's pie in the sky, either. Just the logical next step in the history of workers' struggles against the worst excesses of capitalism.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Man, this is a discussion that belongs in a pub - not on a bulletin board. Too many thoughts ricocheting.

Yes!

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I hope, BTW, that our Labor boys and girls in Canberra are being very friendly with these Nat etc possible majority breakers.

Schmoozing is an underrated art.....

Absolutely, Deb!
And I'm certain that our Mr Fielding is getting quite a deal of lavish personal attention from both sides, too! Laughing

The IR "reforms" debate will create some very interesting bedfellows!

0 Replies

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know