This week saw the Governments attacks on Unions reach a new low when the Government sued more than 100 workers for taking "illegal strike action". The workers face up to $28,000 in fines.
General Strike Needs You!
Jail threat over building workers
AUSTRALIA: The Governments Australian Building and Construction Commission - which is the body it set up to try and crush the CFMEU - issued the workers with writs which could see them facing fines of up to $28,000 each.
The workers crime was to walk off the job for a week about four months ago when a CFMEU delegate was sacked on one of the sites constructing a rail tunnel under the Perth city centre.
A number of interesting points are raised by this development. Firstly - it is the Government directly that is now taking it upon itself to sue workers individually. The company involved in the dispute Leighton-Holdings is unhappy at the action - worried it could derail the project further.
Secondly - it is interesting the Government through the Commision is attacking the workers individually but is not suing the Union officials or the Union itself. In fact the Commision is almost praising of the CFMEU explaining its decision to not sue the Union
"Well in this case the union actually at stop work meetings about this matter, they advised the employees that they ran the risk of incurring substantial penalties, and the union also recommended they return to work. So on the evidence before us, the union did not in any way commit a contravention of the legislation."
I think this is very significant - in a time of increasing attacks on workers rights the Union Leadership and Bureaucracies are determined to "play by the rules" no matter how much they are stacked against workers. Given under the new laws the "right to strike" is virtually non-existant if industrial action could be used against the new laws it would almost by definition be illegal. It follows then if the laws were to be tackled industrially rather electorally workers would have to take action against the wishes and advice of their trade union officials. It seems to be the Government is trying to send a message to workers not to go down this path and to empower the Union Officials to help keep the workers anger in line.
This emphasizes that the only realistic way that workers could take these laws on industrially would be through a General Strike involving all industries. Anything less leaves individual workers at the mercy of Union Officials determined to "respect" bogus anti-worker laws and a vindictive Government.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1680732.htm
This week also saw a number of other disturbing developments in industrial relations in this country. The ACTU highlighted the case of a young truck driver on a mine site who faced harassment after her refusal to sign an AWA. The AWA included the outrageous provision that if a worker failed to give at least 12 hours notice before taking a sick day - they faced being FINED $200. The master servant relationship is well and truly back baby.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1678754.htm
Lastly the Government’s Office of Workplace Services which oversees the implantation of Work Choices found that the Cowra Abatoir was fully within its rights to sack its workers then offer them their old jobs back at less pay. This was legal because “Operational Matters” was the prime reason the company acted. As long as a company can make a case that its not making enough money (which really isn’t that hard – then they can sack workers legally and offer them back their jobs with worse conditions. Their motivations can include de-unionising a workplace or reducing conditions but as long as the OWS decides that these are not the “primary motivations” then its all cool
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1681629.htm
P.S. General Strike Needs You!
This work is in the public domain
Comments
Would I Lie To You
A Canberra high school has vigorously defended its scathingly one-sided portrayal of the hoWARd guberment's No Work Choices laws, which swept its students to victory in the national capital's rock eisteddfod grand final.
Calwell High School's eight-minute The Devil's In The Detail revue reads: "Penalty rates ... gone! Annual leave loading ... So long! Pay rise ... are you kidding! Public holidays ... no way! Meal breaks ... uh uh! Radical new industrial relations laws are being used extensively to axe hard won and long standing working conditions and cut the take home pay of millions of Australian employees."
And official said that some kids in the audience were srcreeming out " Towards a General Strike."
The Calwell show, deemed "totally inappropriate" by the feral guberment, featured a spoof john hoWARd arriving on stage to the Eurythmics' Would I Lie To You, flying pigs and a girl physically coerced by malevolent boss figures into signing a gigantic workplace agreement.
The winning eisteddfod performance on Thursday night depicted the demise of Christmas holidays and distressed workers being banned from going to the toilet. The central character was a sinister spruiking MC dressed as Lucifer.
The act, advertised as a "satirical take on Work Choices", was performed on a stage decorated with three large banners reading, "Proudly sponsored by the Australian Government."
Through various agencies, the hoWARd guberment supports the rock eisteddfod. As well as the major award, the Calwell students won a Health Department trophy for "best concept". Judges praised the performance, based partly on Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the bleak 1927 anti-capitalist film.
Afterwards, one of the Calwell girls explained to a packed audience that the piece had been devised by the students to express concerns that their rights were beingeroded.
Workplace Irrational relations 'sinister' kevin andrews said last night it was one thing for Calwell to educate students about current issues, "but it's another thing entirely for teachers to politically hijack a rock eisteddfod, which is designed to promote positive lifestyle messages for our youth".
But did the kids think of it?
andrews: "This is totally inappropriate, regardless of which side of politics is being targeted," he said, adding it was "difficult to believe" students came up with the idea themselves.
Maybe the students need to go to school?
But Calwell High's dance teacher and eisteddfod co-ordinator, Cheryl Diggins, insisted the Work Choices pastiche was both student-driven and appropriate.
"We have a history of tackling contemporary themes," Ms Diggins said.
Realising the anti-government theme might upset some parents at Calwell, Ms Diggins sent performers home with an explanatory note for parents. "You have to respect other viewpoints, but I didn't get one withdrawal or complaint," she said.
Ms Diggins said previous themes for Calwell eisteddfods included the stolen generation, the detention of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the power of corporations. The Nine Network is expected to air the pastiche later this year.
Lock me up: I won't pay fine for striking
FATHER of four John Pes says he will go to jail rather than pay a fine of up to $28,600 for striking.
"There's no way my kids are going to be living on Vegemite sandwiches while I pay a fine to the Government for sticking up for a principle," Mr Pes said.
He is among 107 men and women served writs by the Australian Building and Construction Commission for defying a total ban imposed by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on a West Australian project.
The workers, building a railway from Perth to the coastal town of Mandurah 100km to the south, also ignored a union directive to return to work when they walked off the job for 12 days in March.
While other workers have told they received writs from the ABCC late on Monday night, Mr Pes is still waiting nervously for his.
According to Federal Court documents listing him as a respondent among 106 others, the knock on the door is imminent.
"I won't be paying the fine and I'm prepared to do a jail term," he said.
"People might say we deserve it because we knew the risks, but this sort of thing is just the thin edge of the wedge."
More than 400 workers employed by Leighton Kumagai went on strike, halting construction of the largest public transport project in Western Australia. Its progress has been disrupted by disputes and it is believed to be five months behind schedule.
The strike in March was over the sacking of the workers' shop steward, Peter Ballard, on February 24.
Mr Pes said the workers wanted to strike because they felt that Mr Ballard, who claimed unfair dismissal and won a confidential settlement, was laid off for complaining about poor health and safety conditions.
"It's the principle," he said. "If you don't stand up for your conditions, you lose them."
Mr Pes quit his job not long after the strike when his friend was sacked. "He was a bloody good worker, he was always efficient, he was always doing the right thing," he said. "I thought it was so wrong."
Jail threat over building workers
CONSTRUCTION workers face jail if they refuse to attend secret interrogations by investigators from the hoWARd guberment's building industry commission.
As it was confirmed that Cowra workers could be legally sacked and re-employed on lower wages, the ACTU said workers on the Perth rail project, who face fines for a strike in February, could be jailed unless they attended secret hearings about the industrial action.
ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the workers faced jail if they did not attend the hearings or if they did not answer questions put by investigators from the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The workers are prevented from disclosing details of the hearings to family members and have to be represented by separate lawyers.
"It's an extreme denial of basic civil rights," Mr Combet said. "This is David Hicks-style treatment. It denies them the right to silence and to protect themselves from self-incrimination.
"Under threat of being thrown in jail, you have to incriminate yourself. That is a breach of one of the fundamental democratic and human rights that people have had in democratic countries."
A commission spokesman yesterday refused to comment on whether workers had been forced to attend hearings. She denied workers faced automatic jail if they did not attend. However, she said the commission was able to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action if workers did not co-operate.
The West Australian division of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union said many workers had been contacted by the commission asking them to answer questions.
However, to the union's knowledge, none had yet been issued with formal notices to appear before a hearing.
"They were given letters or calls and invited to answer questions, and they were told that if they didn't come voluntarily we'd force you to come, and if you refused it's a six-month sentence for failing to appear, failing to answer questions, failing to produce documents," a spokesman said. "They have simply moved to prosecute them and have not gone through the step of compelling a formal hearing."
The federal Office of Workplace Services yesterday confirmed it was legal for the Cowra abattoir to propose sacking 29 meatworkers and re-employ them on wages up to $180 a week below their previous pay. Mr Combet said the findings showed the federal workplace laws left "workers exposed to the threat of being legally sacked and offered their jobs back on lower wages".
OWS director Nicholas Wilson found the abattoir acted legally when it sacked 29 workers in March, because it was in financial difficulty. The workers were offered their jobs back on lower pay and individual contracts. Mr Wilson said companies could sack staff and rehire on lower conditions, as long as that was not the sole or dominant reason for doing so. "My interest is in fact whether or not, in this particular instance, we can say that Cowra breached the law," he said.
"We can't say that. The law requires that it be a sole or dominant reason that there's a connection between the union membership of the people concerned, or between the award coverage that they have.
"We decided it was not the sole or dominant reason for the decision that was taken."
The workers crime was to walk off the job for a week about four months ago when a CFMEU delegate was sacked on one of the sites constructing a rail tunnel under the Perth city centre.
A number of interesting points are raised by this development. Firstly - it is the Government directly that is now taking it upon itself to sue workers individually. The company involved in the dispute Leighton-Holdings is unhappy at the action - worried it could derail the project further.
Secondly - it is interesting the Government through the Commision is attacking the workers individually but is not suing the Union officials or the Union itself. In fact the Commision is almost praising of the CFMEU explaining its decision to not sue the Union
"Well in this case the union actually at stop work meetings about this matter, they advised the employees that they ran the risk of incurring substantial penalties, and the union also recommended they return to work. So on the evidence before us, the union did not in any way commit a contravention of the legislation."
I think this is very significant - in a time of increasing attacks on workers rights the Union Leadership and Bureaucracies are determined to "play by the rules" no matter how much they are stacked against workers. Given under the new laws the "right to strike" is virtually non-existant if industrial action could be used against the new laws it would almost by definition be illegal. It follows then if the laws were to be tackled industrially rather electorally workers would have to take action against the wishes and advice of their trade union officials. It seems to be the Government is trying to send a message to workers not to go down this path and to empower the Union Officials to help keep the workers anger in line.
This emphasizes that the only realistic way that workers could take these laws on industrially would be through a General Strike involving all industries. Anything less leaves individual workers at the mercy of Union Officials determined to "respect" bogus anti-worker laws and a vindictive Government.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1680732.htm This week also saw a number of other disturbing developments in industrial relations in this country. The ACTU highlighted the case of a young truck driver on a mine site who faced harassment after her refusal to sign an AWA. The AWA included the outrageous provision that if a worker failed to give at least 12 hours notice before taking a sick day - they faced being FINED $200. The master servant relationship is well and truly back baby.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1678754.htm Lastly the Government’s Office of Workplace Services which oversees the implantation of Work Choices found that the Cowra Abatoir was fully within its rights to sack its workers then offer them their old jobs back at less pay. This was legal because “Operational Matters” was the prime reason the company acted. As long as a company can make a case that its not making enough money (which really isn’t that hard – then they can sack workers legally and offer them back their jobs with worse conditions. Their motivations can include de-unionising a workplace or reducing conditions but as long as the OWS decides that these are not the “primary motivations” then its all cool
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1681629.htm P.S. General Strike Needs You!
This work is in the public domain
Comments
Would I Lie To You
A Canberra high school has vigorously defended its scathingly one-sided portrayal of the hoWARd guberment's No Work Choices laws, which swept its students to victory in the national capital's rock eisteddfod grand final.
Calwell High School's eight-minute The Devil's In The Detail revue reads: "Penalty rates ... gone! Annual leave loading ... So long! Pay rise ... are you kidding! Public holidays ... no way! Meal breaks ... uh uh! Radical new industrial relations laws are being used extensively to axe hard won and long standing working conditions and cut the take home pay of millions of Australian employees."
And official said that some kids in the audience were srcreeming out " Towards a General Strike."
The Calwell show, deemed "totally inappropriate" by the feral guberment, featured a spoof john hoWARd arriving on stage to the Eurythmics' Would I Lie To You, flying pigs and a girl physically coerced by malevolent boss figures into signing a gigantic workplace agreement.
The winning eisteddfod performance on Thursday night depicted the demise of Christmas holidays and distressed workers being banned from going to the toilet. The central character was a sinister spruiking MC dressed as Lucifer.
The act, advertised as a "satirical take on Work Choices", was performed on a stage decorated with three large banners reading, "Proudly sponsored by the Australian Government."
Through various agencies, the hoWARd guberment supports the rock eisteddfod. As well as the major award, the Calwell students won a Health Department trophy for "best concept". Judges praised the performance, based partly on Fritz Lang's Metropolis, the bleak 1927 anti-capitalist film.
Afterwards, one of the Calwell girls explained to a packed audience that the piece had been devised by the students to express concerns that their rights were beingeroded.
Workplace Irrational relations 'sinister' kevin andrews said last night it was one thing for Calwell to educate students about current issues, "but it's another thing entirely for teachers to politically hijack a rock eisteddfod, which is designed to promote positive lifestyle messages for our youth".
But did the kids think of it?
andrews: "This is totally inappropriate, regardless of which side of politics is being targeted," he said, adding it was "difficult to believe" students came up with the idea themselves.
Maybe the students need to go to school?
But Calwell High's dance teacher and eisteddfod co-ordinator, Cheryl Diggins, insisted the Work Choices pastiche was both student-driven and appropriate.
"We have a history of tackling contemporary themes," Ms Diggins said.
Realising the anti-government theme might upset some parents at Calwell, Ms Diggins sent performers home with an explanatory note for parents. "You have to respect other viewpoints, but I didn't get one withdrawal or complaint," she said.
Ms Diggins said previous themes for Calwell eisteddfods included the stolen generation, the detention of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the power of corporations. The Nine Network is expected to air the pastiche later this year.
Lock me up: I won't pay fine for striking
FATHER of four John Pes says he will go to jail rather than pay a fine of up to $28,600 for striking.
"There's no way my kids are going to be living on Vegemite sandwiches while I pay a fine to the Government for sticking up for a principle," Mr Pes said.
He is among 107 men and women served writs by the Australian Building and Construction Commission for defying a total ban imposed by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on a West Australian project.
The workers, building a railway from Perth to the coastal town of Mandurah 100km to the south, also ignored a union directive to return to work when they walked off the job for 12 days in March.
While other workers have told they received writs from the ABCC late on Monday night, Mr Pes is still waiting nervously for his.
According to Federal Court documents listing him as a respondent among 106 others, the knock on the door is imminent.
"I won't be paying the fine and I'm prepared to do a jail term," he said.
"People might say we deserve it because we knew the risks, but this sort of thing is just the thin edge of the wedge."
More than 400 workers employed by Leighton Kumagai went on strike, halting construction of the largest public transport project in Western Australia. Its progress has been disrupted by disputes and it is believed to be five months behind schedule.
The strike in March was over the sacking of the workers' shop steward, Peter Ballard, on February 24.
Mr Pes said the workers wanted to strike because they felt that Mr Ballard, who claimed unfair dismissal and won a confidential settlement, was laid off for complaining about poor health and safety conditions.
"It's the principle," he said. "If you don't stand up for your conditions, you lose them."
Mr Pes quit his job not long after the strike when his friend was sacked. "He was a bloody good worker, he was always efficient, he was always doing the right thing," he said. "I thought it was so wrong."
Jail threat over building workers
CONSTRUCTION workers face jail if they refuse to attend secret interrogations by investigators from the hoWARd guberment's building industry commission.
As it was confirmed that Cowra workers could be legally sacked and re-employed on lower wages, the ACTU said workers on the Perth rail project, who face fines for a strike in February, could be jailed unless they attended secret hearings about the industrial action.
ACTU secretary Greg Combet said the workers faced jail if they did not attend the hearings or if they did not answer questions put by investigators from the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The workers are prevented from disclosing details of the hearings to family members and have to be represented by separate lawyers.
"It's an extreme denial of basic civil rights," Mr Combet said. "This is David Hicks-style treatment. It denies them the right to silence and to protect themselves from self-incrimination.
"Under threat of being thrown in jail, you have to incriminate yourself. That is a breach of one of the fundamental democratic and human rights that people have had in democratic countries."
A commission spokesman yesterday refused to comment on whether workers had been forced to attend hearings. She denied workers faced automatic jail if they did not attend. However, she said the commission was able to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action if workers did not co-operate.
The West Australian division of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union said many workers had been contacted by the commission asking them to answer questions.
However, to the union's knowledge, none had yet been issued with formal notices to appear before a hearing.
"They were given letters or calls and invited to answer questions, and they were told that if they didn't come voluntarily we'd force you to come, and if you refused it's a six-month sentence for failing to appear, failing to answer questions, failing to produce documents," a spokesman said. "They have simply moved to prosecute them and have not gone through the step of compelling a formal hearing."
The federal Office of Workplace Services yesterday confirmed it was legal for the Cowra abattoir to propose sacking 29 meatworkers and re-employ them on wages up to $180 a week below their previous pay. Mr Combet said the findings showed the federal workplace laws left "workers exposed to the threat of being legally sacked and offered their jobs back on lower wages".
OWS director Nicholas Wilson found the abattoir acted legally when it sacked 29 workers in March, because it was in financial difficulty. The workers were offered their jobs back on lower pay and individual contracts. Mr Wilson said companies could sack staff and rehire on lower conditions, as long as that was not the sole or dominant reason for doing so. "My interest is in fact whether or not, in this particular instance, we can say that Cowra breached the law," he said.
"We can't say that. The law requires that it be a sole or dominant reason that there's a connection between the union membership of the people concerned, or between the award coverage that they have.
"We decided it was not the sole or dominant reason for the decision that was taken."
