Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Thursday, 04 December 2008

Rudd stiffing building unions is smart politics

1/10/2008 5:31:00 PM.  | Tim Brunero

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST FEATURES

Kevin Rudd continues to be the master of the political centre, even with the entry of the socially moderate Mal Turnbull.

Case in point: his dismantling of John Howard’s wonderfully oxymoronic ‘WorkChoices’ laws. He’s been very careful when clipping the union’s toenails to go a bit too close – so they squeak a little. Just loud enough for the electorate to hear.

Not only are union peak bodies miffed at last week’s watering down of the anti-WorkChoices policies the Ruddbot took to the last election, but building unions are especially in a huff.

This is because they still have to deal with the most aggressive part of Howard’s anti-union witchhunt - the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Howard always had it in for building unions, mainly because they are some of the few that still have any power and also because they campaign on issues far beyond industrial relations.

Like his destruction of student unions, getting rid of potential political opponents is the gift that keeps on giving to Tories until the end of time.

Before he foisted the Australian Building and Construction Commission on building workers it was his 2001 Building Industry Royal Commission that effectively shut unions down for six months and bled them of a heap of dosh in legal expenses.

And what did that yield after costing tens of millions of dollars and going around the country? One union official got charged with perjury after making up some silly story about sleeping with a boss’s wife.

That’s it?

But even that warranted foisting on building unions an industrial watchdog that has powers akin to a terrorist taskforce. Including denying workers who are to be interrogated access to legal counsel of their choice.

You’d think in an industry where one worker is killed every week there would be other priorities on your mind. Workers like 17-year-old Dean McGoldrick, who fell from a Sydney worksite less than a month after hitching down from Tamworth to find work in the big smoke. He wasn’t wearing a harness.

Or 16-year-old Joel Exner who died on his third day of work labouring on the old Sydney Wonderland site – he fell 16 metres. He also wasn’t wearing a harness.

But that doesn't seem to rate.

What the government does do is attempt to fine workers tens of thousands of dollars for taking industrial action. And it also does a good job of making sure building workers are under more scrutiny and seemingly have less rights than everyone else in the workforce.

You’d think Rudd would want to end all that. But why bother when the odd squeal from a militant union is good for business?

You wouldn’t want to leave any room on the fence for Mal Turnbull to manoeuvre.

COMMENTS

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Tim the workers abandoned the unions before workchoices. Many years ago I was a staunch believer in unions, and a member.I worked along side people who resented the union fee's being deducted from their salaries, and couldnt grasp the fact, at that time, that unions were getting them better working conditions and wages. Most of these same people never complained with each wage rise or any safer working conditions. Over the years, the worker him/herself left the unions, leaving them weaker.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Then came the corruption in unions, workers watched as they did nothing to benefit them but lined their own pockets doing deals with politicians etc. Union reps became more concerned about elevating their own postions inside the Labor Party and toeing the party line, instead of representing the workers who paid their dues. This is when the Labor Party also forgot their grass roots..workers left the Unions and the Labor Party in their droves. Workers didnt want compulsory union dues anymore

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Cont : Around the end of the eighties workers were fed up with the top end of town union bosses kissing up to business and doing deals not in their interests, with Keating. Now Rudd has to walk a fine line, workers are still untrusting of unions and their leaders,one of the real reasons Howard was able to bring in Workchoices.The only union with any power was the builders,.because the workers had left the others in huge numbers.Workers dont trust unions now, let alone the politicians among them.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Workers began to realise workchoices actually created jobs,still had the basic protections of minimum wage and an Industrail relations board, and also made it easier for small business to employ more people.Still needed a little tweaking, but many workers, who were once union members, realised they could negotiate for themselves better than the unions of the eighties had. Rudd wont make huge changes to workchoices,in fact it is still 85% the same.Unions will never have the power they once did

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Sue, one key issue is the relevance of unions. Independent of Work Choices their membership has fallen to <18% in the private sector (makes you wonder why the unions are so heavily represented in government?). And you are right..Gillard "talks" about abolishing Work Choices and throwing out AWA's, but in reality NOTHING has changed, its mainly cosmetic. As is much of Rudd's policywork, its all re-badge and take the credit! (I'm surprised that Tim didn't write about Muslim Builders from BB??

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Maybe I am missing a point Tim. You start by telling us how great Rudd is. How smart and a master of political centre. Then rather then being critical about Rudd not making good on his promisse to dismantle Howard's industrial laws you take the whole page telling us what Howard did wrong. Do we realy care what Howard did? He is gone mate. Gone. It is up to Rudd to fix our problems. Unionists bought him the election so tell them to tell Rudd he ows them and pay up.Oh! Howard warned us about it .

Posted by: Happy Stein, Earlwood

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Interesting Susan... and comprehensive. So why did people react so violently to workchoices when Howard brought it in? Can it be also that unions are only as strong as their members/delegates? That if people leave rather than get involved they can hardly complain when they achieve little?

Posted by: Tim Brunero, Sydney

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

They reacted so violently because of an overwhelming scare campaign against Workchoices. Now the workers have a completely different problem - the prospect of no job at all, never mind having their shift penalties taken from them.

Posted by: Happy Little Gumnut, Sydney

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

The people left when the delegates forgot about them and worried more about the party Tim. The delegates stopped listening to their members and began listening to politicians. The workers made the Unions weak, by leaving them. Go back and look at the old day union delegates Tim, they didnt wear suits and they were working class...some of them were rough and ready, tough as all get out, but they stood by their members, not politicians.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Tim: Get with it - the govt worker unions ran a scare mongering campaign - they still have the stronghold and very large numbers of the workers (the govt is the largest employer in this country or perhaps you are not aware of that) and whose workers believe the unions will protect them and actually do something!NOT! what they don't know is that these cowards provide funds to the labor party and also line their own pockets in the process while they head for careers in politics - how else do you think they got in especially in NSW where these campaigns ran for the Federal election (states should not have even interfered but they did)-example the PSA, the nurses union and the teacher's fed - all ran their propoganda and cowardly campaigns (didn't you notice the signs at the hospitals! and at no time were any of those workers ever going to be affected by work choices- tell me if they would have been Tim and then perhaps you may be able to justify your comments.

Posted by: RS ****, Sydney

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Workchoices and the concept of IR reform was never the creation of Howard nor the HR Nichols society. It began with Thatcherism and later spread to New Zealand, certainly never a new ideal nor needed in a modern industrial climate. If you want to live in a deregulated economy go to Thailand.

Posted by: Sean Ambrose, Helensburgh

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

workchoices did nothing for me except get me harrassed at work. many people got harrassed, bullied if they signed on the dotted line. i ended up getting injured at work because i was so stressed out. this was all because of workchoices was brought in. don't tell me it was a good thing. its been 2 and half yrs of pain almost 3. the sooner we are rid of it the better. The union couldnt help me when i was sacked, because i was on an AWA. go figure.

Posted by: Belinda Hummie, New lambton

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Tim Brunero - 'Kevin Rudd continues to be the master of the political centre'-Only in the eyes of his doting fan Club of which you seem to be an office bearer. The only thing that Kevin Rudd has mastered is the gift of the gab. He is very short on positive, practical results. Work choices was a job creating machine and people on AWAs received better wage packages than those that were not. Rudd’s first budget has already allowed for the exodus of 100,000 from the work place-that figure will get a lot worse when the new IR laws come into force with the return of the unfair dismissal laws for small business and his Carbon Trading costs hits employers. Yes I know –world economic conditions and that naughty John Howard left him such a poor economy-blah, blah, blah. A Master should be able to overcome all this.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Susan Lowe, Your argument is malafide with deliberate intent to deceive. Workers never left the 'unions' at their own peril, they were forced when Howard opened the floodgates with his first wave of IR reforms and allowed employers to fill their boots with lead. I find it perverse that under 'jerkchoices' an employer could stipulate that an employee could not be employed within the same industry for a set period if his/her employment was terminated. Certainly not competitive behavior as alleged the legislation would enable. I find it comical that clauses are found within the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission prohibiting this kind of behavior from companies and individuals. Susan, to say the least 'Workchoices' violated article 23 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and numerous other conventions of the International Labour Organisation.

Posted by: Sean Ambrose, Helensburgh

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Sean, check Union membership and when its number began to decline. It didnt begin AFTER the introduction of Workchoices. It began well before then, when ordinary workers realised they no longer represented them, when the manufacturing industry began to dry up, thousands of jobs went off shore. The coin began to drop when the little people realised the Union took their money for years, but supported the very party that ratified the Lima agreement and sent their jobs to asia.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Sue, don't worry. We all know that Work Choices DID NOT violate article 23 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Ambrose runs this anarchistic line all the time. Des usually shoots him down in flames but we've all given up repeating facts to Ambrose, as he seems to prefer inaccurate rhetoric. My suggestion Sue is to move on and let Ambrose fester.

Posted by: Geoff (give me a medal Carrow!) Bolton, Lane Cove

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

I resigned my union membership with the AWU in 1982. I did not feel that they represented me. Susan is right.

Posted by: A Narchy, The Hills

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Susan, Greg Combet said in 2005 "union membership has fallen to its lowest level with almost 25,000 fewer workers in unions than 12 months ago with 360,000 members leaving in the past four years". Thought this might help your point with the blinkered few!

Posted by: Gareth Benson, Blacktown

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Interesting POV but i still think the unions have it all there own way, and Rudd's so called half measure doesn't really hurt. Consider, when th unions collectivised under Hawke/Keating they complained about loss of power and were given superannuation funds to play with. They charge the workers management fees etc. A worker that is not part of a union may be treated as having no rights. Unions still go above and beyond in paying for and supporting ALP .. but it is worth it to them.

Posted by: Happy Fun Ball, Carramar/Sydney

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Susan, My experience with Unions was one of Disaster. For years,in some cases still today it was " compulsory" to be a Union member to enjoy the right to work on a mine site. " No Card", " no work".! Now, I dont know about the labor luva's out there but I still fail to see how I wasnt sublected to Discrimination. Not just me but hubndreds and hundreds of Others as well. I'll never Labor while my mind is mine. :) they dont need me!

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

David Daniel, Just wait and see what will unfold if these 'corporate stiffs' attempt to defraud the working class. I will be the first to move a motion to take to them with cargo hooks.

Posted by: Sean Ambrose, Helensburgh

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Ambrose, who is the "working class"? Aren't they just people who work for a living? Or are they some kind of special breed - like extreme left wing bludgers? I consider myself as working class as do probably most Australians. Or is it only dockworkers and builders labourers that fit your definition?

Posted by: Geoff Bolton, Lane Cove

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Good question, Geoff. Just more of the self gratifying delusions of grandeur from those who have the gall to accuse anyone who has a dissenting view of a "born to rule" attitude. Its just like the term "working families". Most of us work and we have families who also work. Whats the big deal?

Posted by: A Narchy, The Hills

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Happy, exactly ,under Hawke/Keating , management fee's and working for Keating and not their membership was the beginning of the end of Union power.The Y Gen now move employment and career on a regular basis,they are savvy and they know they can negotiate their own contracts without the assistance of a union.There are few factories and manufacturing jobs now, where at one time unions were needed.Workers negotiate for themselves now. Sean I worked in a time when unions represented ME, not Govt.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Geoff, Gareth, A Narchy, I find it extremely foolish of some who disregard or disrepect knowledge gained from life experience. When one tries to put the facts, gained not from media propaganda or University doctrine, but from actual experience, they seem to get indignant. I wonder when they will realise we are supposed to learn from accurate history, and those who have been there, done that. Gareth I am familiar with Combet, another Union man come politician.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Nick, and for that card, what did they do for you exactly ???? Let me guess...nothing !! Compulsory unionism and no choice, same here Nick...no union, no work...once when workers had NO rights, there was a place for unions, I remember that time, I worked in it....then the unions forgot who they worked for and betrayed their workers for greed and political gain. I was born working class, I'll die working class working class, but now I CHOOSE who I pay dues too, and it isnt the Unions.

Posted by: susan lawe, gippsland

 

Wednesday, 01 October 2008

Did the unions not see a Tory in red when the allowed Kevin into their fold?

Posted by: H Azy, Sydney

Thursday, 02 October 2008

H Azy-No thanks-keep him on the red side of politics where he belongs.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

 

Thursday, 02 October 2008

The trees upon seeing a woodcutter with an axe exclaimed " its okay - the wooden handled - axe is one one of us." The Alternative Liberal Party have been union busting from way back when Billy Hughes smashed the Industrial Workers of the World for opposing Conscription. Rudd is a dud just spun as nicer than Howard. In solidarity we trust - not any Party !

Posted by: viola wilkins, Moreland Melbourne

 
 

YOUR SAY