The Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary, Sally McManus, did
something brave on her first day in the job. When asked how she could
believe in the rule of law but fail to condemn unlawful strikes, she
said what she thought: Australia’s limits on strikes go too far and when a law is unjust there is no problem breaking it.
This sort of talk is brave in the Yes Minister sense – so unequivocal and clear as to be politically counterproductive.
If McManus wanted to start a rational conversation about civil disobedience and the justice of our industrial laws, what she got was a shouting match.
The government immediately leapt on the remarks, saying they approved “lawlessness”. Because it provided such a good attack line against Labor and the unions, Bill Shorten immediately disagreed with her stance.
Shorten has already said he has “zero tolerance” for illegal conduct but focuses on criminality and corruption, stuff like stealing union members’ money; not unlawful strikes which, as McManus argued, can be aimed at improving safety.
So the conventional political view is that McManus stuffed up – but she has plenty of ammunition to support her point.
Due to restrictions in Australian law, employees can only strike:
Australian experts on the right to strike, including Shae McCrystal, argue that these restrictions fail to comply with the right to freedom of association in international labour law.
That’s also the ACTU’s position. McManus wasn’t freelancing or making it up as she went along. She told Guardian Australian in an interview before her election that she wants to roll back these restrictions.
The Australian government’s position is that these restrictions do comply with International Labour Organisation conventions. There is disagreement – and that’s the debate McManus wanted to provoke.
Unions’ objections to these restrictions are not purely theoretical. They have real-world impacts. Public servants can’t strike together against the New South Wales 2.5% public-sector pay cap and the federal government’s bargaining policy limits pay rises unless other conditions are traded off.
Unions have to expend resources to organise and negotiate workplace by workplace, when workers would be better off if they could win the same pay rise across an industry, as the CFMEU did with a 15% pay rise over three years across the construction sector in Victoria.
Qantas strikes have been cut short by the Fair Work Commission, and workers receive an arbitrated pay outcome rather than what their industrial muscle could muster. Firefighters risked legal action and fines for turning their hoses on NSW Parliament House to protest against severe cuts to workers’ compensation.
Fairfax Media journalists faced investigation for a snap strike aimed at saving their colleagues’ jobs from redundancy. Then there’s the impossibility of imposing green bans to protect public spaces and amenities.
Sometimes the union movement played by the rules, other times it didn’t. Sometimes it won, and sometimes it didn’t.
But these examples demonstrate the kind of outcomes and campaigns that anti-strike laws and the reinstated Australian Building and Construction Commission are designed to throttle.
This sort of talk is brave in the Yes Minister sense – so unequivocal and clear as to be politically counterproductive.
If McManus wanted to start a rational conversation about civil disobedience and the justice of our industrial laws, what she got was a shouting match.
The government immediately leapt on the remarks, saying they approved “lawlessness”. Because it provided such a good attack line against Labor and the unions, Bill Shorten immediately disagreed with her stance.
Shorten has already said he has “zero tolerance” for illegal conduct but focuses on criminality and corruption, stuff like stealing union members’ money; not unlawful strikes which, as McManus argued, can be aimed at improving safety.
Due to restrictions in Australian law, employees can only strike:
- With other employees of the same employer for an agreement to cover that enterprise
- During a bargaining period after the expiry of an old agreement
- For rights that can be put into an agreement, not other legal or policy measures even when they directly affect workers (such as striking against a public-sector pay cap or workers’ compensation cuts)
- For their own rights, not in sympathy with other workers through secondary boycotts
- In isolation, not through pattern bargaining to achieve common agreements across multiple employers or supply chains
Australian experts on the right to strike, including Shae McCrystal, argue that these restrictions fail to comply with the right to freedom of association in international labour law.
That’s also the ACTU’s position. McManus wasn’t freelancing or making it up as she went along. She told Guardian Australian in an interview before her election that she wants to roll back these restrictions.
The Australian government’s position is that these restrictions do comply with International Labour Organisation conventions. There is disagreement – and that’s the debate McManus wanted to provoke.
Unions’ objections to these restrictions are not purely theoretical. They have real-world impacts. Public servants can’t strike together against the New South Wales 2.5% public-sector pay cap and the federal government’s bargaining policy limits pay rises unless other conditions are traded off.
Unions have to expend resources to organise and negotiate workplace by workplace, when workers would be better off if they could win the same pay rise across an industry, as the CFMEU did with a 15% pay rise over three years across the construction sector in Victoria.
Qantas strikes have been cut short by the Fair Work Commission, and workers receive an arbitrated pay outcome rather than what their industrial muscle could muster. Firefighters risked legal action and fines for turning their hoses on NSW Parliament House to protest against severe cuts to workers’ compensation.
Fairfax Media journalists faced investigation for a snap strike aimed at saving their colleagues’ jobs from redundancy. Then there’s the impossibility of imposing green bans to protect public spaces and amenities.
Sometimes the union movement played by the rules, other times it didn’t. Sometimes it won, and sometimes it didn’t.
But these examples demonstrate the kind of outcomes and campaigns that anti-strike laws and the reinstated Australian Building and Construction Commission are designed to throttle.
No comments:
Post a Comment