Union Power Restricted

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

ws Home | Story
IR changes smash union clout
From:
By Steve Lewis and Brad Norington

October 10, 2005

John Howard / Mark Graham
Launch ... The PM and Kevin Andrews unveiling WorkChoices.

THE Howard Government will have extraordinary powers to ban strike action as part of a concerted assault on union power to be introduced under a new wave of industrial reforms.
Employers will also find it much easier to take damages action against militant unions in court, and the Government will severely limit the right of all unions to enter worksites.

The tough measures were announced by John Howard yesterday as part of a detailed outline of how the Government's new system, WorkChoices, will operate.

It represents the most direct government attack on union power, ensuring a fierce battle between Canberra and the labour movement through to the 2007 election.

For the first time, the Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, will be handed an "essential services" power, enabling him to declare strikes illegal if they are considered a threat to public welfare or to the economy.

Despite industrial action falling to record low levels, the Government's new power would stop almost all strikes in the car manufacturing industry and severely curtail unions in the coal, waterfront, construction and aviation sectors.

Advertisement:
After giving business a privileged one-hour private briefing yesterday morning, the Prime Minister declared his reforms were "big but fair" in the pursuit of improved productivity and flexibility.

But he was unable to guarantee no worker would be worse off.

"I can look the workforce of Australia in the eye tonight and say, 'look at what has happened under my prime ministership over the last 9 1/2 years'," he said.

The Prime Minister advised workers who were unhappy with their bosses to seek alternative employment, declaring Australia a "workers' market".

"There are a lot of recourses," he said. "I mean, one of them in today's conditions, labour market conditions, of course is to go to another employer who will pay them better."

A longstanding advocate of more flexible work practices, Mr Howard said the changes were necessary to drive economic growth and ensure Australia did not slip down the world competitiveness ladder.

As revealed by The Weekend Australian on Saturday, a series of safeguards would protect many minimum award conditions - such as public holidays, meal breaks and penalty rates - for workers who moved to individual contracts. But employers could still wipe out these conditions by including "specific provisions" in individual contracts.

Mr Howard said Australia would have high unemployment like Germany if it did nothing.

Under the changes, the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be severely restricted with a new five-person Fair Pay Commission taking over its job of setting minimum wage rates and other key conditions.

Canberra will take over responsibility for industrial relations under a single national system, although the Labor states will launch a High Court challenge against this plan.

Determined to break down the century-old system of collective bargaining, workers will be encouraged to negotiate individual or enterprise agreements with their bosses.

And companies employing up to 100 workers will be able to sack their employees without fearing costly court action, under changes to unfair dismissal laws.

A raft of new laws will severely limit the activities of unions, making it extremely difficult for them to take legally protected industrial action.

It will be mandatory for all legal strikes to be determined by secret ballots run by the Australian Electoral Commission, which could take weeks to determine.

Employers will gain speedier access to the courts to press for damages claims, and courts will only need to be satisfied there is a serious question to be tried - not hear evidence of commercial damage - before granting interim injunctions.

Rules on deregistering unions will be widened and union-friendly terms will be excluded from wage agreements.

ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the changes were "extremely repressive" and provisions safeguarding workers were "an illusion".

"I find it hard to see how unions will be able to take industrial action that is legally protected," he said.

Mr Combet said awards were effectively finished.

Kim Beazley attacked the Government, describing the changes as the "most savage of its excesses". He pledged to "fight to the end for the rights of working Australians".

But business groups welcomed the push towards greater workplace flexibility. And Peter Hendy, chief executive of peak employer group the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the reforms did not go far enough.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16866245-2,00.html

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Oh man Australia is becoming very pro business.

**** this government off.

The workers are going to get ****ing screwed.

[DarkCypher]

Oh man Australia is becoming very pro business.

What’s wrong with being pro business you socialist pig you?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

What about the rights of thw worker?

Under these new laws unions will no longer be able to strike if it affects the copmanies bottom line.

That is the whole point of industrial action to put pressure on the company to reach common ground with the unions!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

When there are labor laws, why would anybody need a union?

[TacoDelRio]

What about the rights of thw worker?

Under these new laws unions will no longer be able to strike if it affects the copmanies bottom line.

That is the whole point of industrial action to put pressure on the company to reach common ground with the unions!

Hence my not working for a union.

[Durandal]

When there are labor laws, why would anybody need a union?

X2

I mean lets be honest. Studies show that a company that takes care of its employees, regardless of laws turns out a better product, in less time, with better quality, for less cost.

I understand the need for unions 100 years ago...hell even 30 years ago, but what power do they really have? Inflating wages and holding a company over a barrel to wring it dry of any profit?

I disagree with a CEO getting a 24 million dollar tax deductible (for the company) bonus when the company is in bankruptcy hearings and defaulting on pensions, but that is a separate issues.

[Kilgor]

why not look at france and see how the unions and quasi communist groups screw everything up.

Btw, what is australia's current unemployment rate ? I think its at a historical low.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Australia's current economic prosperity is largely because of major reforms in the 80's and 90's not the current government.

Did you know that the then opposition treasurer John Winston Howard opposed the Labour governments move to release the Australian currency on the world market?

Did you know the then Treasurer John Winston Howard in the late 70's was responsible for not one single budget surplas or growth in the Australian economy?

[Flagg]

I reckon critical infrastructure needs should have union limits regarding strikes placed on them.

Airlines, airports, ports, shipping, railways, police, sanitation, energy...basically ALL essential services.

One only needs to look at Air France during the last World Cup to see how the union blackmailed the country.

Auto manufacturing? That doesn't make any sense.....big business protectionism.

Strike workers having access to company property? F that.......anyone trying to strike on my companies property gets a boot to the ass.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

How many people work for you Flagg if you don't mind me asking?

[sickofpretenders]

I think howard is going to overdo it, but the unions have become too powerfull and counter-productive in Australia over the years. The unions keep worthless guys in jobs that more motivated workers want to do. I tried to do some work for free to get some experience once, but the unions heard about it and threatened strike, saying I was taking a job off a union man. In mine and contstruction sites around Australia the unions have forced through ludicrous safety measures that only the laziest workers support. Most workers now prefer the EB arrangements when they can get them as its better for everyone.

To say they can stop a union from striking because of law is absurd. Do you think that the first strikers, or the first unions, were not breaking the law? Its like saying war is illegal. Sriking will always be the workers last resort. Making it illegal might prevent the strikes over tiny issues, like having a pinball machine in the break room, or the stereo in the store room not being loud enough.

[Flagg]

How many people work for you Flagg if you don't mind me asking?

15 permanent, plus anywhere from 3-10 contractors.

[catalyst]

To say they can stop a union from striking because of law is absurd. Do you think that the first strikers, or the first unions, were not breaking the law? Its like saying war is illegal. Sriking will always be the workers last resort. Making it illegal might prevent the strikes over tiny issues, like having a pinball machine in the break room, or the stereo in the store room not being loud enough.

the Eurekas didnt stop because it was illegal and dangerous did they?

SOP - agree with you here....

[dacanadianbomb]

The balance is the unobtainable thing with unions and companies.
Problem is unions are run like companies, always under the pressure to provide their shareholders ( members ) with the best possible result.

Some unions have realise the times, and are not asking for 3-4% across the board pay increases for their members,simply because they realise the companies cant realistically do that. It does not matter what you deliberated in a union meeting and sign, if the company goes **** up 6 months later, and is in chapter 11.

ONe of the worst cases I have seen is the Canadian Auto Workers union at the Oshawa GM plant in Canada.
Guy sitting there clicking windshield wipers onto cars and trucks , making 28$ CDN an hour-coverage already paid, thanks to the union.
When I was working at Viceroy homes factory in Port Hope ontario, shuffling my ass of in the paintshop for 7,30$ an hour.And I was happy for that 7,30 an hour, cus minimum was 6,40$ at the time I think.
And eventhough thats great for all the guys that get in, and I wish them that they have chickens that lay golden eggs, everyone is surprised when companies then want to relocate production lines to other countries.

THe balance is almost unatainable, and you need to potect the people.Without a doubt the boards would rape and pillage them until they are bone dry.
My view is , your there to protect in all fairness , not to try and get a free ride on it too.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

15 permanent, plus anywhere from 3-10 contractors.

Ok so a good sized small business.

just curious as help understand you're point of view. Which does have it's merits as a business owner. Especially a small business.

[Laworkerbee]

Unions are a thing of the industrial age past, at least here in the States.

Good post dacanadianbomb

[nognig]

You want to see the effect of unions, look at the recent bankruptcy of Delphi (automotive parts supplier in the US). A few of the reasons why the company went bankrupt:

1. Something called a "job bank". If the company can't find work for you, you still get paid a full salary and benefits.

2. The union had better medical coverage than the CEO of the company! No co-pays.

3. People with minimal skills were getting $28/hour, when in other comparable industries the wages were 1/2 that.

The union (UAW) was too stupid to realize it was killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The bankruptcy allows the company to nullify all labor contracts and impose their own. If the unions hadn't bleed the company dry years ago, this wouldn't have happened.

NN

[Geezah]

I know the Unions are screwing us in one of our plants, and that's why allot of the manufactering has moved to China.
As everyone else has stated, Unions are a thing of the past.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

So you people honestly think companies (no offence Flagg) will treat workers fairly?

Come on. If it was not for unions work safety, paid holidays/sick leave/maternity leave would not be here. The western worlds high standard of living is because of the union movement.

The reason why companies are going offshore is I admit because of some union pressure in so far that costs are raised. But they also go over seas because they can get a ready aggreable workforce that will not argue about getting paid 50 cents an hour as oppposed to 20 bucks an hour in a western country.

Also look at the social changes in western society. Things like universal health care, cheap higher education, democracy in alot of countries, and the amny welfare programs governments run to help the unfortunate.

the 38 hour working week, public holidays, it goes on the many things unions have achieved. You take away the unions rights and companies generally will make moves to lower the working conditions and pay of it's employees using the argument. "Don't like it. Don't work for me";

Then you will say. Well if they don't do the right thing they won't get the workers. Now it does sound like a very valid point. However. many people are not in a position to change jobs for various reasons. Like providing a roof over the heads of their families, putting food on the table ect. So they will simply accept what the company is offering because of the fear of the alternative. Which is unemployment.

Unions remove this fear.

As for unions causing companies to go broke. That is hogwash. Companies go broke because of bad leadership in the board of directers and senior managment. Saying it's the unions fault is like saying it's the guy with the shovel that sends a mine broke.

Common sense people.

[Laworkerbee]

So you people honestly think companies (no offence Flagg) will treat workers fairly?

Yes I do, simply because if you want to attract talented workers it's best you treat them right otherwise they will leave you in droves and your business will crumble. Workers are not slaves they can get up and leave for something better, let a free market decide.

Hows that for common sense?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Because it's bound to failure.

Many people especially those with families will not want to risk becoming unemployed because a company is lowering working conditions.

[Laworkerbee]

Um then find a company that does and move on, or better yet go into business for yourself.

I get quite a few offers for more money from other companies but they can't match my working enviroment, so I stay. Still going to open up that Taco stand in Helsinki some day and make a killing.

To quote from Fight Club " workerbees can leave even drones can fly
away the queen is their slave " Thats how I got my online name :)

[sickofpretenders]

Australia has been heading this way for years. The unions have no-one to blame but themselves for it. The no longer represent the majority of workers and are certainly a a hindrance to the workers are well as the companies. I have been a member of 2 unions. In both cases my boss gave me extra money to pay my fees in case I didnt want to join and that caused trouble. In the first case I said I didnt want to join anyway. The boss was told to get me to join or there would be a strike. In effect I never had a choice about it. The took my money and in return I could be a slack worker that did little and was often late and I could not be fired. As I chose not to do those things and worked hard I did not like seeing the union reps spend all day drinking coffee and doing nothing.

I have seen strikes over the most absurd things. I have never seen a strike over something I felt was fair. The unions have become full of themselves and like a bad parasite are killing thier host. It is time it to swing the other way. Sure it will go too far, but its Austrlalia in 2005, not england in the 1800's, we still have laws to protect workers.

[Kilgor]

Marindau, do you really want to see Australia end up like the sick men of europe, France, Italty and Germany ?

With cronic unemployment, uncompetative economies and jobs shifting overseas, militant unions uncapable of accepting needed change ??

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Of course not.

And as I said. You can not blame unions for creating an environment of high unemployment and what not as seen in Europe.

The fault lies in governments and and managment of companies for not managing their companies in an efficent manner. Unions are only an organised body of workers at heart. For sure some union reps go to far. But so do business leaders.

I can think of many more instances due to gross mis-managment by managment then I can of a union caused problem.

Enron
Arthour Anderson
Steel Tank and Pipe (I worked there)
BHP
Rio Tinto
Coles Meyer
Rover
GM
Ford
(Insert any Airline here)

All have had problems due to mismanagment of the company. Unions only negotiate the best deal for it's members. If a company agrees to it and doesen't have the foresight to hold up and say "I think we can only give a 3% rise instead of 15%" Who's faults that?

Not the unions.

[sickofpretenders]

aah I understand now. If union strike action and threats to do so make a company uncompetative its the companies fault, mismanagement or the government. If the union insists on a 15% rise when the company can only afford 3% its the companies fault.

And if the company can get workers willing to work in worse conditons or for less pay or be paid on a production basis, thats bad and also the companies fault, or the governments.

And lasty if the unions power is restricted by the goverment and the company then pays a 3% rise instead of 15% thats bad and the companies fault also. Or the governments

Thanks for explaning minardiuism but can we talk about the real word now?

[Laworkerbee]

No sickofpretenders we can't speak of this "real world"

we are supposed to be using "common sense" in "minardiuism" as you so correctly put it

[Abolith]

When there are labor laws, why would anybody need a union?


I hear that! back in the day Unions were vital, but they have won us the protections that we the workers needed and now their time has come and gone. all they are doing is [in the US] is artificially rasing the wages to a level that is unsustainable by business. I have seen t in my area time and again were the local unions figth and fight until the business has to leave to another area or more likely overseas becauses the workers cost is just too damn high. Now i'm all for a good wage but a union water worker making $26 and hour is far too much for the skill set.






So you people honestly think companies (no offence Flagg) will treat workers fairly?



yes I do. Just look at EE's, NO union but we still get paid a decent salary with good benefits. my opinion is if you want that really nice high paying job then get a skill-set that will enable you to make that kind of money, or start your own business, DON'T depend on some group to strong-arm the company you work for into overpaying you because in the end they will leave your ass in the dust and move to another country.



Come on. If it was not for unions work safety, paid holidays/sick leave/maternity leave would not be here. The western worlds high standard of living is because of the union movement.

Very true, they were needed at one time but not anymore, now they hurt more than they help.




The reason why companies are going offshore is I admit because of some union pressure in so far that costs are raised. But they also go over seas because they can get a ready aggreable workforce that will not argue about getting paid 50 cents an hour as oppposed to 20 bucks an hour in a western country.

Actually a decent number of companies are moving BACK into the mid west small town type of setup. 1) they can pay less and the workers still maintain a good level of living and 2) there is nowhere else for the workers to go, so they have regular, reliable employees. granted this is something that is only now starting to develop here in the US and it's mainly with more tech/office type people but it is a good sign and it's all happening without the involvment of unions.

v


Also look at the social changes in western society. Things like universal health care, cheap higher education, democracy in alot of countries, and the amny welfare programs governments run to help the unfortunate.

the 38 hour working week, public holidays, it goes on the many things unions have achieved. You take away the unions rights and companies generally will make moves to lower the working conditions and pay of it's employees using the argument. "Don't like it. Don't work for me";

Then you will say. Well if they don't do the right thing they won't get the workers. Now it does sound like a very valid point. However. many people are not in a position to change jobs for various reasons. Like providing a roof over the heads of their families, putting food on the table ect. So they will simply accept what the company is offering because of the fear of the alternative. Which is unemployment.

Unions remove this fear. ;

let me correct that last statement for you;

Unions removed this fear

this is why we have workers protections, companies may provide only the minimum but they aren't required to do any more than that and if they break those laws they can be sued and fined ect.. thanks to unions, but now we have those things and they are needed anymore.



As for unions causing companies to go broke. That is hogwash. Companies go broke because of bad leadership in the board of directers and senior managment. Saying it's the unions fault is like saying it's the guy with the shovel that sends a mine broke.

Common sense people.


HAHAHAHA Look at GM, they are paying 60%+ of their profits to pensions that the unions have slowly expanded over the years, and if they continue GM will have to take even more serious steps to stay solvent and profitable and that means MORE factories and offcies moving overseas and out of western countires in general (note: this is according to a fellow engineer who works at GM)

[catalyst]

But they also go over seas because they can get a ready aggreable workforce that will not argue about getting paid 50 cents an hour as oppposed to 20 bucks an hour in a western country.

And I wholelly support moving offshore to allow for cheaper and more competitive products! The same can be said in Australia....why would you continue working in a poor workplace with little financial return when you can get up and go to 'flaggs' company and make more....this is globalisation on a micro scale.....moving offshore is on the macro scale...

unions need to get off the fat ass they sit on....realise that the world has changed....thus we need to change...globalisation is ripe pickings for Australia with its resources and agriculture and skill set.....lets get off our asses and start doing somethign about it...net getting weighed down by....the coffee machine is broken....drop tools....