LL:DDV: Marxism conference
How best do we fight back against the Liberals? Will the Wall Street bubble burst? What's the way forward in Indonesia and East Timor? Where is the Labor Party heading? These and many more questions will be discussed at Marxism for the New Millennium, the national weekend of discussion and debate organised by Socialist Worker, to be held at Trades Hall in Melbourne on August 27, 28, 29. Hear some of the best speakers on the Left: * Jack Mundey, legendary former NSW BLF leader * Monica Morgan, Yorta Yorta * Mike Salvaris, Swinburne Uni * Craig Johnston, AMWU * Alison Stewart, editor of Socialist Worker * Ellen Kleimaker, Vic Trades Hall women's officer * Michele O'Neil, TCFUA * Andrew Scott, AMWU * Andrew Rowe, Mayor of Moreland * Tom O'Lincoln and Adrian Skerritt, recently returned from Java and Aceh * Andrew Milner, Monash Uni * Ian Rintoul, ISO national organiser More than 30 talks on themes including: Fighting the Liberals; Marxism and the Modern World; A Century of War and Revolution; The Crisis and Social Democracy; History, Science and Culture. Register early and save. Childcare must be booked in advance. For a brochure will all details and a full timetable, email a MAILING ADDRESS to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or phone 03 9386 4815. Please forward this message to appropriate addresses and lists. LL.VH -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:ART: WKPLACE RELATIONS SPECIAL PAGE2
WORKERS UNITED: COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS (CAs) With the undermining and gutting of awards, Certified Agreements (CAs) are basically the only form of collective coverage left open to unions to maintain and improve workers' wages and conditions. Reith's legislation gives employers a number of new big sticks to prevent union involvement in collective bargaining and to sabotage CAs. Workers may still be represented by their union in meeting and conferring with their employer about a particular agreement, if they are not too intimidated and have the confidence to make a written request. Employers could offer an agreement to some workers, and not to others and then, having got their "agreement", take it to the Registrar at the Workplace Relations Commission for certification without a public hearing. There would be no requirement to notify the union during the negotiation period, and the union would have no power to veto the agreement. An employer could negotiate as many agreements as it likes with different groups of workers. Each agreement could have completely different wage rates and conditions. In addition employers would be permitted to sign up workers on individual employment contracts, regardless of the existence of any agreements. Individual contracts override Certified Agreements. It would be illegal to include in an agreement provisions excluding individual contracts from a workplace or to do anything that might inhibit the signing of individual contracts. Transfer of business The Commission is given the power to waive the requirement that where business (e.g. a new $1 shell company, or contracting out) is transferred to a different company, the new employer is not be bound by the Agreement. Decentralisation The undermining of awards and the focus on enterprise bargaining has already cost unions and workers dearly. Those unions with thousands of workplaces to cover do not have the staff or financial means to re-negotiate agreements in every workplace every two or three years, let alone monitor them and ensure employers are carrying out their obligations. In the past a union would serve one log of claims on hundreds or thousands of employers in an industry and run a national campaign in support of its demands. Any industrial action would have been centrally co-ordinated, across a number of workplaces, possibly covering a whole industry or service nationwide. Such a campaign would usually result in a wage rise and improvements in conditions that would be included in the appropriate award and apply to all workers covered by that award. Decentralisation through reliance on enterprise agreements has tended to fragment the struggle. It has also stretched the resources of unions to the point where they can pay little attention to the day to day problems being suffered by workers. It means that unions have fewer resources to recruit, to build and organise, compounding all the other pressures that the Workplace Relations Act has brought on unions, such as the greater use of civil courts. "Pattern bargaining" Faced with these problems, some unions adopted an approach known as "pattern bargaining", whereby their campaigns and demands were co- ordinated and similar or identical agreements made with a number of employers with common expiry dates. In this way the unity of all the workers in an industry was maintained. For example, in the metal industry unions are pursuing a common expiry date as agreements are renewed. This would enable them to campaign together and take "protected action" at the same time when their agreements came up for renewal. Reith's "second wave" legislation outlaws "pattern bargaining", a reflection of the Government's determination to prevent industry- wide solidarity between workers across workplaces or even within a workplace. Solidarity action by workers in one workplace in support of workers in another workplace or the same workplace is not "protected" and is, consequently, illegal if Reith's legislation is adopted. If there were several Certified Agreements in a workplace with different expiry dates, it could lead to a situation where one group continues to work while another group whose Agreement has expired attempts to take "protected action". NNo doubt this is what Reith has in mind. Anything to divide workers and prevent united action. Outlawing pattern bargaining also makes it more difficult to obtain uniform wage rates based on skill and experience. It does make it easier for employers to pit workers against each other as they compete for jobs. ** AWARD SAFETY NET SHRINKS In Reith's first wave, awards were stripped back to 20 "allowable award matters". Rostered days off, rest periods, occupational health and safety provisions, amenities, limits on maximum hours or the spread of hours, restrictions on the use of casual and contract labour, consultation
LL:ART: WKPLACE RELATIONS SPECIAL PAGE1
INTRODUCTION The trade union movement is facing the most serious anti-worker, anti-union laws since the introduction, more than 90 years ago, of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court system in which unions were accepted as playing a central role with guaranteed rights. The Howard/Reith Government's "second wave" of industrial legislation seeks to turn the clock back by 150 years to the dark days of the master-servant relationship, by attacking workers' wages and conditions and preventing workers from collectively bargaining in their trade unions. The aim of the Government and employers is to put every worker on an individual work contract, thereby turning the clock back to the time when workers had no rights. In this special four-page lift-out ANNA PHA, editor of "The Guardian", outlines some of the key features of the legislation and what it would mean for workers if Reith's Bill becomes law. Copies are available for distribution. ** STOP REITH'S "SECOND WAVE" The wages, working conditions and right to organise of millions of workers will be savaged if the Federal Government's "second wave" of industrial legislation is passed. The rule of law would be replaced by the diktat of bosses if Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith gets his way. Reith's "second wave" legislation not only gives employers more powers to stand over workers but attempts to cripple trade unions and prevent workers organising and struggling collectively to defend their wages and conditions. This legislation CAN and MUST be defeated by the united actions of workers organised in their trade unions together with all other progressive and democratic community groups and individuals. Workers worse off When electioneering, Howard declared: "No worker will be worse off". This was a shameful and deliberate lie! Millions of workers and their families have become "worse off" as awards were stripped back to 20 "allowable matters". Gains achieved over decades have been ripped off workers. Instead of a steady job there is casualisation and job insecurity. Rio Tinto, Patrick Stevedores and other big corporations have pushed Peter Reith's laws to their limits in their anti-worker drive. * The sacked Oakdale workers are $6.3 million worse off. Many other workers have lost their entitlements. * Rio Tinto callously dumped 115 men and their families on the scrap heap after announcing a $34 million profit at Hunter Valley No 1 mine. * Wharfies were subjected to the trauma of balaclava clad private security thugs with dogs, removing them from their jobs in the middle of the night. * Penalty rates for shift and weekend work have been abolished on many jobs and workers are clocking up long hours of unpaid overtime. * And while some are forced to work longer hours, others who want a full-time job, are forced to take part-time work. There is no work at all for the 700,000 unemployed. All this and more thanks to Reith's "first wave". Bosses gained new powers to intensify the exploitation of workers by imposing secret individual contracts and shutting trade unions out of negotiations. The right to take industrial action without being sued by employers for damages was limited to "protected action" during enterprise bargaining periods. "Protected action" didn't protect workers from dismissal. Now, the Howard Government and its big business patrons want to make workers even worse off. That's the job of the "Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999''. Reith starts his lies in the name of the Bill! It should have been called the ``No Unions, Lower Pay, Fewer Jobs Bill'', because that's what it is. The Government is out to destroy the centralised Award system which protected workers' rights and conditions for almost 100 years. Reith wants to leave individual workers at the mercy of profit- hungry employers without the support of their fellow workers or trade union. Reith's laws breach international conventions The International Labour Organisation -- a body of trade union, government and employer representatives found Reith's "first wave" laws contravened international conventions (laws) which give workers Freedom of Association and the right to Collective Bargaining. The right to join and form trade unions and to bargain collectively are further cut in Reith's "second wave". REITH'S AGENDA Reith's aim is a world without unions, a world without regulations or any other obstruction to the profit-making of the big corporations. He wants what he calls "an internationally competitive workplace relations system" -- a deregulated labour market with cheap, compliant labour competing with workers in low wage countries for crumbs. "And never forget which side we're on. We're on the side of making pr
LL:DDV: Public Meeting: Revolution and the East Timor referendum
Revolution & the East Timor referendum Will Timor referendum be free an fair? Will it bring independence a step closer? What can be achieved from a vote for independence? Come and discuss revolutionary participation in the referendum Bringing revolution and independence a step closer Tues. August 17 7.30pm, Meeting Room 1, RMIT City Campus All Welcome Organised by Workers Power LL.VH -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:ART: Employers flex their muscle on hours
The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/9908/03/text/features3.html LABOUR ISSUES Employers flex their muscle on hours Date: 03/08/99 For most employees, enterprise bargaining has meant more give than take on when they work and for how long, writes RON CALLUS Changing traditional working hours was going to be a win-win situation for employers and employees. Or so we were told, not just by employers but by governments of both persuasions. However, for many employees it hasn't worked out that way. The flexibility has had to be very much on their side of the ledger, and the result has been a less predictable working life and a disrupted family life. This is vividly illustrated by the case of Kym Wood, whose employer, Steggles Chickens, wants her to start work at 6.30am instead of 8am. Wood has complained to the Industrial Relations Commission that the new hours would make it impossible for her to arrange child care for her three school-age children. The dramatic changes to working arrangements reflect the move from an awards system that often prescribed ordinary hours of work for a whole industry, to a system of enterprise agreements where working time could be tailored to the needs of a specific organisation. This issue has dominated enterprise bargaining since it began in 1991. Nearly 80 per cent of enterprise agreements deal with changing the times people work. The arrangements cover the number of hours worked each week; increasing the span of ordinary hours each day or each week (so what was paid previously as overtime becomes ordinary time); annualising hours; averaging hours worked over a month,a quarter or a year; and reducing or staggering rest and meal breaks. Enterprise bargaining has facilitated an expansion in operating hours for many organisations. About 30 per cent of all agreements allow for 12-hour spans of work and, in the wholesale and retail trade, the figure is 43 per cent. Enterprise agreements have also given management greater discretion about how hours are to be worked. About one-quarter of all agreements provide such discretion, while in industries like recreation, and wholesale and retail trade, the figures are well over one-third. To complicate matters, the working week is getting longer for many full-time workers. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1978 about a third of full-time workers worked more than 41 hours a week. However, by the end of last year more than half of full-time workers worked such hours. The predictability of hours has also fallen because 25 per cent of the workforce is now employed as casual. On top of that, only a third of the workforce works standard hours each week. The Wood case, however, is not so much about how many hours people work but when they work. Traditionally, standard hours for full-time employees were 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. But the desire of employers for more flexibility and the reduction or elimination of penalty payments for employees working non-standard hours means fewer full-time workers are working that traditional week. The proponents of change argue that this is good because workers can work when it best suits them. That may be true for those who work part-time, but the advantages are less obvious for full-time workers. Overwhelmingly, exactly when full-time employees are at work is determined by their employers, not by the workers. It is not surprising then that a national employee survey by the Federal Government in 1995 found that nearly 30 per cent of full-time workers were less satisfied with the balance between work and family life than a year ago. In contrast, 20 per cent of part-time workers were less satisfied with the balance. What, then, are the often-overlooked consequences to the working time arrangements for full-time workers when changes are made in enterprise agreements? First, with greater working time flexibility comes less predictability. Yet for many workers the need for predictable work hours outweighs the advantages of flexibility in starting and finishing times. The Wood case demonstrates problems when hours are changed unilaterally. It may simply not be possible to change child-care arrangements or school hours to fit the changing hours an employer needs. How many day-care centres have places for children whose parents find they have to work evenings or weekends? Co-ordinating family activities becomes almost impossible if one or more members of the family cannot be sure what days or hours they will be required to work. Rather than making work more family-friendly, these new arrangements may further isolate people from their families. Second, non-standard hours of work have wider implications for non-work leisure activities. People may no longer be able to commit to sports or other activities. Team sports require a group of people who share common free time. No wonder recent ABS data shows volu
LL:URL: News Aug, 03
A Luta Continua English Newsletter - http://come.to/luta See today at http://come.to/luta The Indigenous Knowledge Programme Riga: four environmental activists managed to chain themselves to the partially completed Butinge oil terminal Newport News shipyard workers end four-month walkout Humanity's impact on the earth equals the 5 mass extinctions of past geologic history Big Brothers, big eaters: Yahoo to buy the ExciteAtHome Mandelaism: 'Whites earn 5 times more` Campaign: Target The Mexican Consulate Near You The new Noskes saga: German Laborers Challenge Social Democrats' Right Turn Thousands of K-P-F-A supporters rallied in Berkeley Russian Energy Workers Strike For Unpaid Wages Anarchists are reviving an institution of the 60s counterculture--the free school in which anyone may teach and there are no entrance requirements KLA behind violence against serbs -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
LL:PR: PLUTONIUM SHIPMENT ON THE WAY TO SOUTH PACIFIC
MEDIA RELEASE from Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) 29 July 1999 PLUTONIUM SHIPMENT ON THE WAY TO SOUTH PACIFIC Two ships carrying MOX fuel (mixed plutonium and uranium oxide) will travel through the South Pacific in late August and September on their way to Japan. The Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal will pass through the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, and then through the Exclusive Economic Zones of island nations. The Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) in Suva, Fiji believes Pacific governments must work together to halt the shipment of radioactive materials through our seas. Any accident threatens the marine resources of our Exclusive Economic Zones. Japan, France and Britain are refusing to discuss compensation if there is an accident, and have failed to conduct detailed environmental assessments of the hazards of shipping plutonium through our region. Mrs. Losena Salabula of PCRC says: "We believe that South Pacific governments should work together to end all nuclear shipments through our region. Currently, these shipments of plutonium are not banned by the Rarotonga Treaty for a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, or the 1995 Waigani Convention on hazardous wastes." "We call on member governments of the South Pacific Forum to convene a review conference of the Rarotonga Treaty, to strengthen its provisions against nuclear shipments and nuclear waste dumping on land. We also believe that parties to the Waigani Convention should strengthened its provisions, to place pressure on Japan, Britain and France to halt these shipments." The Rarotonga Treaty allows for the establishment of a Consultative Committee (Article 10 and Annex 3) for the purpose of "consultation and co-operation on any matter arising in relation to this Treaty or for reviewing its operation". This Consultative Committee is obliged to convene "at the request of any Party". It would be possible for any Pacific island government to ask for the Committee to be convened. Action could be taken at this year's South Pacific Forum in Palau. The Waigani Convention (the Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes, and to control the Transboundary movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region) must also be strengthened to stop transboundary shipments of plutonium. Mrs. Salabula added: "This September, the United Nations will be holding a special session on Small Island Developing States. Japan, Britain and France will be shipping plutonium through our waters at the same time. This shows their contempt for the clear wish of Pacific island people - we want to be nuclear-free." ACTION ALERT - August 1999 Here they come again! PLUTONIUM SHIPMENT ON THE WAY Two ships carrying MOX fuel (mixed plutonium and uranium oxide) will soon travel through the South Pacific. The Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal carry enough plutonium to make up to 50 nuclear weapons. The ships left Europe for Japan in mid-July. In late August and September, they will pass through the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, and then through the Exclusive Economic Zones of Pacific island nations on their way to Japan. Background to nuclear waste shipments The nuclear age in the Pacific is not over. In spite of the end of nuclear testing, the region is still threatened by plans to dump nuclear wastes on South Pacific islands. The waters of the Pacific have also become the route for the transshipment of plutonium and high-level radioactive wastes to Japan. Japan has a large nuclear power industry, and it arranges for its nuclear wastes to be reprocessed at plants at La Hague in France, and at Sellafield in the United Kingdom (Reprocessing involves chemically separating uranium and plutonium from used nuclear fuel, in order to reuse the plutonium). Shipping radioactive wastes back and forth across the oceans allows Japan's nuclear industry to avoid responsibility for the build-up of nuclear pollution in Japan. Many Japanese citizens are opposed to Japan's plutonium economy. There are also many safety problems with Japan's reprocessing industry, such as the December 1995 fire and accident at the Monju reprocessing plant, or the March 1997 fire and explosion at Tokaimura reactor. The Japanese reactor due to use this current shipment of MOX fuel was manually shut down on 5 July this year, after a leak of coolant. The reprocessing companies - COGEMA in France and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) in Britain - are government owned and controlled, while ten Japanese energy corporations make up the Overseas Reprocessing Committee (ORC). These three companies own the British-based shipping firm, Pacific Nuclear Transport LTD (PNTL), to carry the wastes to Japan by sea. Japanese corporations Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPCO) hope to bring tons of weapons-usable plutonium from Europe to Japan by
