Bill Mitchell wrote: > >the australian newspaper published a comparison of labour packages at the CRA >Weipa plant b/tw those that took the contracts and those that decided to remain >on the award last week. > >the overwhelming evidence is that the contract workers (prior to the decision >of the Arbitration Commission) were very much better off even though they had >traded in some conditions. The Australian newspaper has only published that which the company has chosen to release. Until threatened with a subpoena in the current case before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission last week, the company had said that it would not divulge the complete details of any individual contract. Apparently the workers are forbidden to do so as a term of the contract. It is believed that some terms of the contracts are so draconian that they would be unenforceable if challenged in court _by a party to the contract_ (ie. a union cannot directly mount a challenge). One alleged term is that the employee agrees not to participate in any activity outside of working hours - sport, social, political, whatever - of which the company does not approve or which is inconsistent with their employment by the company. Such a term is effectively a denial of freedom of speech. It's back to the days where the company buys not just your labour power but your soul. The other obvious legal problem with such contracts is that, in specifying that the individual is not allowed to seek advice on the contract from a union or other source, they are harsh and unconscionable. As far as I am aware, contract law in Australia holds that where a party to a contract is not able to avail themselves of independent advice they cannot be held to have entered into the contract with full understanding. Such a contract can be neclared null and void. The problems the unions face at Weipa and elsewhere is that an individual who wants to challenge the contract they have signed - even with union support - must be prepared to have their life overturned. It is much the same as a woman who mounts a sexual harassment claim - she may win but find her employment prospects anywhere in the country substantially diminished. In terms of straight wages it was apparently the case that workers on the industrial award at the Weipa site were earning around A$40,000 per year for a 52 hour week. Those who signed individual contracts earned several thousand dollars per year more. In the heavily unionised coal mining industry average wages are over A$65,000 per year for an average of 44 hours per week. It remains the case that where unions are strong and active, the workers are better off. >as i mentioned the other night, a point peter ignored, the unions and the govt >were completely straitjacketed in this mindset that any time a firm would >individually bargain it would be at the expense of the worker. that is, it >would always involve lower incomes. There have been many cases of firms offering their employees 10% or more above the award just to maintain management prerogative through keeping unions out. It is not a new phenomenon. I am aware of cases at least a decade ago where high-tech manufacturing industries here, (which fully supported the industry policy of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union which promoted such industries) would resist attempts by the same union to unionise their workplace through bribing workers with higher wages. It is an age-old practice by some firms that are the high profit-makers in their industry. There was no straitjacketed view by the unions that such things could not occur. It remains the case that they will be the exception rather than the rule. Most firms and industries - and especially those in the services sector where labour costs are a high proportion of operating costs - do not have the capacity or inclination to offer higher wages as a union-busting tactic. Peter Colley Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [EMAIL PROTECTED]
