[PEN-L:1564] Unions win against RTZ/CRA
Unions win against RTZ/CRA Since no other Australian seems to have gotten around to it, I should inform labour activists and other progressives that there has recently been a major victory in Australia against a transnational company with an avowed agenda of de-unionising its workplaces. The story is as follows: On Tuesday 21 November one of Australia's largest public companies, CRA Ltd. was forced to make major concessions to the union movement. In emergency hearings before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the company agreed to pay an immediate 8% wage rise backdated to 1 March 1994 to striking unionists at its bauxite and kaolin minesite at Weipa in far northern Australia. The concession came after major strike action in Australia which was snowballing into action across a number of industries. The strikes were led by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), which called 20,000 members out on a five day shipping and waterfront strike, and by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) which called out 25,000 mineworkers in a 7 day national coal strike. The Background CRA Ltd is a major international mining company based in Australiawhich is 48.7% owned by RTZ of the UK. Combined they are the biggest mining company in the western world. The company has been pursuing a policy of de-unionising its mines and minerals processing sites for several years. It has done this by frustrating collective bargaining processes for 2 -3 years and then offering individual employees wage rise of 15 - 20% if they will sign individual contracts which forfeit their right to be represented by a union. This policy approach has been successful in the context of some unions being overly reliant on the centralised wage fixing system in Australia and not having the organising base to win wage rises "on the ground" and the ability to actively service their members. Put simply, a company with an ideological agenda has been able to employ sophisticated but nevertheless brutal human resources management tactics to crush unionism. The company had already deunionised over 11,000 of its 16,000 member Australian workforce when the current dispute occurred. Action by unions had been largely confined to legal battles in the Industrial Relations Commission. The lack of a solid base in many of the sites under attack prevented more militant action. The immediate dispute A workforce of about 500 mineworkers at the Weipa mine was denied a wage raise from 1991. From about 1993 the company began offering individual contracts with 15% or more pay rises. A majority of the workforce accepted. The main union at the site was the Australian Workers Union, a once militant and left-wing union (at the turn of the century) which has increasingly lost its way and sought to gain coverage of workers through doing deals for cheap labour with companies. Companies are now saying that they don't need the AWU anymore now that basic organising and maintenance of union culture has long-ceased at AWU workplaces. A solid core of workers at Weipa - about 75 - refused to sign the contracts. In many cases they were acknowledged to be the most experienced and skilled people on site. The anomoly developed that some people doing training of new employees were being paid substantially less than the people they were training. Several weeks ago, the CFMEU, which had no direct coverage at the site, offered to back the workers to the hilt in a campaign for "equal pay for work of equal value", the right to collectively bargain, and the right to be represented by a union. The 75 workers went on strike and staged an innovative "floating picket" wherein small boats were used to prevent ships from loading cargoes at the mine port. After some weeks of this, the company took legal action to sue the individuals and the CFMEU for damages. The Australian Council of Trade Unions then decided that it had a battle it was prepared to go to the wall on. The battle was over core union rights, and the isue of individuals being sued was emotive enough to galvanise unionists across the country. The ACTU departed strongly from its normal position of working in cooperation with the social-democratic government (the Australian Labor Party) because it formed a view that companies such as CRA were successfully abusing the enterprise bargaining system to destroy trade unions and workers' rights, and that the ALP could not be relied upon to resolve the issue. It was battle that had to be won in the field. Battle was joined swiftly after the issuing of writs for damges against striking mineworkers on 10 November. Key unions agreed to lead a massive campaign of industrial dispruption that was not limited to the mining industry. A five day waterfront strike commenced, as did the aforementioned 7 day national coal mining strike (The coal industry is the main part of the mining industry where the CFMEU rather than the AWU is the principal union,
[PEN-L:1565] Re: Unions win against RTZ/CRA
peter colley has provided a long review of a recent (major) IR battle in OZ. as a fellow OZ i would be more circumspect than peter. although it is a horrible meat-eating type of statement "I wouldn't be counting my chickens before they are hatched." Unions win against RTZ/CRA Since no other Australian seems to have gotten around to it, I should inform labour activists and other progressives that there has recently been a major victory in Australia against a transnational company with an avowed agenda of de-unionising its workplaces. [deletions] The company had already deunionised over 11,000 of its 16,000 member Australian workforce when the current dispute occurred. Action by unions had been largely confined to legal battles in the Industrial Relations Commission. The lack of a solid base in many of the sites under attack prevented more militant action. some corrections or alternative interpretations to peter's background: (a) the coy has been acting within the realms of the new IR Act developed and introduced by the federal labour govt (the political arm of the tu movement). The Act pushes the OZ wages system away from centrally controlled national wage decisions into the mirky waters of enterprise bargaining. This move was wholly supported by the peak union body the ACTU. the early evidence is that women, ethnic workers, part-timer's, youth, and others are losing badly b/c they are no longer protected as they were under the national wages case setting. (b) the government/actu were warned that within the Act it was perfectly possible for a company to bargain with individuals. (c) the unions and govt *absolutely* stuffed up here. they predicted very badly (based on their narrow stereotypes) that companies would only be interested in doing indiv. bargains if it meant they could bargain wages and condition *below* the current award settings. so they had strong min. conditions that could not be bargained away. fine. the coy (CRA and its subs Comalco) were too smart by half. they offered very large wage rises (up to 25 per cent) to workers who moved over to indiv. bargains. a substantial majority took this option of their "free accord". the govt and actu were caught out badly. the evidence is that the coy has delayed dealing with collective bargains. but no more than most coys under the new Act. that is what was to be expected by the stupid gov/actu alliance who thought the EB process would be a bonanza for workers. no way. it was so easy to frustrate bargains. A solid core of workers at Weipa - about 75 - refused to sign the contracts. a very small number of the total site employment in actual fact, peter. AIRC to issue a statement on 21 November that said: * the actions of CRA were inconsistent with Australian industrial law that emphasises the role of collective bargaining and of trade unions * that workers should not suffer discrimination because they choose to be represented by a trade union * that the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value" (first introduced in Australian law in 1969 with regard to women's pay) should be applied in the Weipa case Under enormous pressure, and unable to rapidly respond to the fast pace of events, the company agreed to a backdated wage rise and to further arbitration on outstanding matters by the evening of that day. peter ignores to mention that while the contract workers are mostly 25 per cent up, the Arbitration Commission only awarded the award workers an 8 per cent pay rise. the sticking point now is what is equal work. the commission did not say that the contract workers were doing equal work to the award workers. that is why they only gave 8 per cent. the issue now in the AC is to investigate the equal work issue. the coy is saying that the flexibility that the contracts bring means that those workers are more valuable than the award staff. the ACTU has not provided a convincing response to date to this line of argument. The longer term implications A major tactical vistory has been achieved. One of Australia's biggest companies has been publicly shown to be discriminating against unionised employees, its policies have been held to be out of step with Australian principles of fair play, and it has been forced to negotiate with trade unions and change its position. this is not accurate. it is not a major tactical victory at all. it is a sort of mop up job by the ACTU after being completely outwitted by the coy. the coy has *not* been shown to have policies out of step with the OZ principles of fair play. that has still to be decided and the initial 8 per cent only pay rise is indicative that the AC was not convinced. *If* a new principle of equal pay can be established, it will no longer be possible/easy for companies to use individual contracts as a deunionsation tool. finally you tell it how it is peter. *if*!! the case this week has been a minor delaying tactic for the unions in OZ. the real game is in the
[PEN-L:1567] Re: Unions win against RTZ/CRA
On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Peter Colley wrote: Unions win against RTZ/CRA Since no other Australian seems to have gotten around to it, I should inform labour activists and other progressives that there has recently been a major victory in Australia against a transnational company with an avowed agenda of de-unionising its workplaces. The story is as follows: * * * The Background CRA Ltd is a major international mining company based in Australiawhich is 48.7% owned by RTZ of the UK. Combined they are the biggest mining company in the western world. The company has been pursuing a policy of de-unionising its mines and minerals processing sites for several years. It has done this by frustrating collective bargaining processes for 2 -3 years and then offering individual employees wage rise of 15 - 20% if they will sign individual contracts which forfeit their right to be represented by a union. * * * I seem to recall that CRA owned / owns Tiwai, an aluminium plant in New Zealand. The company engaged in a similar -- but successful -- strategy of deunionising there immediately after the ECA was enacted in 1991. According to reports, it learned deunionising techniques after a visit to and consultations with consultants in the United States in the late 1980's. Does anyone know, if my recollection is correct, whether the methods used have, in fact, been transported from one site to the other and what were similarities and dissimilarities? ellen Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
[PEN-L:1566] Re: Women in...
Doug correctly notes the increase of women receiving professional
degrees as MDs, lawyers, etc. I would like to point out that this does not
translate into jobs. While there are certainly many more women receiving
advanced degrees, they are not being hired.
For example, 9/10/91 New York Times (sorry, no page) article; "Women Still
Behind in Medicine" by Philip J. Hilts notes that "not a single dean of an
American medical school is a woman, that 98 pecent of department chairmen are
men and that medical school faculties are still 79 percent men, despite the
fact that 36 percent of all medical students are women.
Women in national organizations fare no better. The American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose sole mission is to provide health
care to women, has never had more than two women in its top 17 offices at any
pne time in its 41 year history.
. The report also noted that women who are doctors made 63.2 cents
for each dollar men who are doctors earned in 1982, and that by 1988 women
who are doctors made only 62.8 cents per dollar of their male counterparts'
salary.
According to the figures from the American Medical Association, the
gap in pay is not directly linked with experience. The average net income of
men with one to four years' experience in 1987 was $110,600, while women with
the same experience made only $74,000 on average. Men with 10 to 20 years'
experience made $158,800 to women's $99,400."
Moving from medicine to another favorite field on pen-l, economics, and
looking at another New York Times article from January 8, 1993, "In
Economics, a Subtle Exclusion" by Louis Uchitelle: "Only a handful [of women]
are tenured professors at the nation's top-ranked universities. Men dominate
the prestigious specialy fo theorizing about how economies work. And
whenever women ask the American Economic Association to set up a child-care
center for the groups' annual three day meeting, their request is turned
down."
Basically, in 1992, women received 22.1% of economics Ph.D.'s and were 3.3%
of economic's full tenured professors. "Over the last decade, 22 percent of
all Ph.D.'s in economics have gone to women. They move easily into
entry-level jobs. At the 80 universities with graduate-level economics
programs, 20 percent of the assistant professors hired soon after graduate
school are women. But women account for only 8 percent of associate
professors at these schools, and less than 4 percent of tenured professors.
Even outside academia, there are barriers for women in economics
... . Though women are hired as often as men for entry-level economics jobs
in the Federal Government, studies show that after five years, women received
fewer promotions than men."
Like I said before, aa has raised the limit, but the limit sure as hell has
not disappeared.
One more point, 46% of professional women receive their professional degree
discontinuously -- i.e., in middle age. Almost 90% of men receive their
professional degree continuously, i.e. in their twenties.
maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1568] PROFS Case: Book on White House e-mail (fwd)
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-URL: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:50:49 -0500 (EST) From: Eddie Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PROFS Case: Book on White House e-mail NEW BOOK PROVIDES NARRATIVE ON PROFS CASE ALONG WITH REMARKABLE PRIMARY DOCUMENTS. Following Press Release11/22/96 REVELATIONS FROM --WHITE HOUSE E-MAIL: THE TOP SECRET COMPUTER MESSAGES THE REAGAN/BUSH WHITE HOUSE TRIED TO DESTROY, Edited by Tom Blanton (New York: The New Press, 256 pp. plus 1.44 megabyte computer disk), distributed by W.W. Norton Company. For more information, contact: Tom Blanton (o) 202/994-7000, (h) 301/718-6543, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SECRET SUPPORT FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN Top Reagan administration officials, including Colin Powell, presided over covert intelligence support to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, including targeting information on Iranian civilian infrastructure for Saddam's SCUD missiles. In secret e-mail messages, National Security Council staffer William Cockell recommended -- and Deputy National Security Adviser Alton Keel agreed -- they cover-up the assistance to Saddam, because "it is difficult to characterize this as defensive assistance." [pp. 36-41] Subsequently, while Powell served as Deputy National Security Adviser in 1987, the Reagan administration discussed a "shopping list" of pro-Iraq actions in order to "stiffen them up." [pp.235-237] HELPING NORIEGA "CLEAN UP HIS IMAGE" Three months after Seymour Hersh and The New York Times exposed Manuel Noriega's involvement in drugrunning and murder, Noriega approached the National Security Council staff with an offer to assassinate the Nicaraguan Sandinista leadership. Oliver North relayed the offer to his boss, National Security Adviser John Poindexter, writing that "you will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship." Poindexter replies, "I have nothing against him other than his illegal activities" and approves a North meeting with Noriega -- as does Secretary of State George Shultz. The bottom line? The White House agrees to help Noriega "clean up his image" in return for Panamanian sabotage operations against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. [pp. 23-25] THE WHITE HOUSE SENDS A COCAINE CONSPIRATOR TO CLUB FED Top Reagan administration officials from the White House, Pentagon, and Justice Department just said yes to a reduced prison sentence (in a minimum security facility) for a Honduran colonel and sometime CIA asset who was convicted of cocaine trafficking and conspiracy to assassinate the civilian president of Honduras, because otherwise the colonel might "start singing songs nobody wants to hear" about covert operations in Honduras. [pp. 42-48] SECRET DEALS WITH LOBBYISTS ON A CONTROVERSIAL CONGRESSIONAL VOTE The White House struck a secret deal with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the spring of 1986 to avoid an AWACS-style all-out battle on a Saudi arms deal vote, and in return got AIPAC's help on foreign aid funding and on the Iran- contra scandal. But National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher warned, "whatever one may think of the jewish leadership, the 'masses' are rarely if ever swayed by what the rational, reasonable leaders say. instead, it is the israel right or wrong demagogues at the grassroots level that will try to take advantage of the leadership's pusillanimity." [pp. 150-157] HIDDEN FAILURES OF THE POLYGRAPH (PRECURSORS OF ALDRICH AMES) According to the National Security Council's top counterintelligence official in 1985, career FBI agent David Major, two out of the 48 individuals indicted, arrested and/or convicted of espionage against the U.S. in the years 1975-85, had successfully deceived the CIA's favorite screening tool, the polygraph (lie detector) -- a 4% error rate. (Aldrich Ames subsequently beat the polygraph twice.) [p.220] ROSS PEROT'S EGO RIDES AGAIN Ross Perot "sandbagged" the Reagan White House at a 1986 Congressional hearing on the POW-MIA issue, according to the lead White House staffer on the issue, Col. Richard Childress, who also wrote, "he has played into Hanoi's hands for his ego and doesn't even know it." [p. 162] MORE WHITE HOUSE E-MAIL STORIES * Then-Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin personally arranged with Oliver North for secret shipments of captured PLO weapons to Central America in September 1986, with the approval of the National Security Adviser. Rabin also commented, according to North's e-mail, "at some length about his low opinion of our intel service [CIA] - both in terms of
[PEN-L:1569] Re: Price, Commercialization, Internalization of the Net
On Tue, 21 Nov 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4) I do not want any of the above to be interpreted as an attack against the NYMS. They do good work and are an important resource for Marxists in the NYC area. I do, however, want Bill to reconsider the nature of his intervention on PEN-L. I would much rather hear what he has to say about theoretical and political issues than to hear advertisements. I agree with your point about being poor and avoiding being singled-out, but I, for one, _would_ like to know what the world-famous(?) NY Marxist School is doing in our attempt to advance a marxist understanding of our universe... +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ |stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal | | if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig| | more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key available. | | http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
[PEN-L:1570] Re: Women in...
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [great stuff deleted] waitresses in small restaurants are rarely carried on the books; thousands of women engage in non-recorded but paid care jobs for children, maids, eldercare, cleaning jobs in homes and offices, etc.; women make up a huge portion of illegal garment workers and farm workers; and then there is the old unmentionable topic -- prostitution. Given all this, the truth is, married women in blue collar homes who do not work are in the vast MINority. Thanx a jillion Maggie -- you've really disabused me of some long-held and obviously simplistic ideas..! +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ |stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal | | if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig| | more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ | Jim Jaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key available. | | http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
[PEN-L:1571] Re: Unions win against RTZ/CRA
On 24 November 1995 Ellen J. Dannin wrote: I seem to recall that CRA owned / owns Tiwai, an aluminium plant in New Zealand. The company engaged in a similar -- but successful -- strategy of deunionising there immediately after the ECA was enacted in 1991. According to reports, it learned deunionising techniques after a visit to and consultations with consultants in the United States in the late 1980's. Does anyone know, if my recollection is correct, whether the methods used have, in fact, been transported from one site to the other and what were similarities and dissimilarities? The brief answer is that CRA does own the Tiwai smelter in New Zealand, which was de-unionised after the NZ government introduced the Empoyment Contracts Act which abolished the legal status of trade unions overnight. Trade unions can only exist in NZ as voluntary associations like sports clubs. CRA cites Tiwai as an example of the success of its strategy, and claims that productivity and the like have improved enormously. There are two aspects to such claims: 1. They are never independently verified. We all know how shonky the OHS statistics are from transnationals operating in third world countries where such statistics are never independently scrutinised. CRA makes similar spurious claims with regard to producticity in mines in unionised mines here compared to non-unionised mines in the USA. 2. It is often the case that some unions have left themselves vulnerable to attack through doggedly resisting all work place change. I am not saying this is/was necessarily the case at Tiwai. In Australia the historical tradition of skill or trade based unions rather than industry unions has meant that unions sometimes resisted workplace change because where such change affected job classifications it threatened their legal coverage rights. With the move to larger and industry-based unions (which is still regarded by some here as divorcing the rank-and-file from their unions) the problem of demarcation and inherent opposition to workplace change has been lessened. The person whom it is claimed that CRA has drawn on for its inspiration is Elliot Jacques from the USA. However, most of his work has been done with CRA, so I am not sure how well known he would be in the USA. Elliot has claimed here that he is not anti-union, and that CRA's tactics at Weipa cannot be sourced from his advice. He just claims to about reducing layers of management and about creating absolute bonds of loyalty between the individual worker and the company. However, it is clear that there is no room for collective representation of workers in such a framework. Peter Colley National Industrial / Research Officer Construction, Forestry, Mining Energy Union (Mining Energy Division) Sydney, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1572] Re: Unions win against RTZ/CRA
Bill Mitchell has been somewhat critical of my account of Australian unions' campaign against RTZ/CRA, and highly critical of the role of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the last 10 years. At the obvious risk of starting a debate that I do not have the time to continue, and which may be of little interest to those in the northern hemisphere, my response follows. I should make it clear that I am not an employee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, nor a member of the Australian Labor Party. 1. I don't think I have over-rated the union's victory against CRA. It is a _tactical_ victory; not an absolute win. I think I adequately highlighted the required short and longer terms actions required to build on the tactical victory. There are a lot of _ifs_ and the odds are not with trade unions. 2. Bill construes enterprise bargaining as a creation of the ACTU and the ALP. Moreover, the ALP is characterised as the political arm of the labour movement. Although the party was initiated with that goal, and some starry-eyed idealists might still regard it as such, most people inside and outside the ALP have no such illusions. The ALP is a social-democratic party which is generally able to draw the support of the labour movement at election times. Sometimes, as in the 1993 federal election, that support is crucial. 3. The ALP is often influenced more by business than by the labour movement. It is a pragmatic election-winning machine and will stuff the labour movement around if its own policies and priorities warrant it. 4. When the ALP came to power in 1983, there was agreement between it and the ACTU that substantial economc restructuring and workplace change had to occur if the Australian economy was not to go quietly down the plughole. At the time, Australia relied almost exclusively on agricultural and mineral exports (incidentally, where my union has substantial membership) to sustain its international trade. Almost no product or service produced by Australians was salable on world markets. Many trade unions were complacent about Australia's economic future, and implicitly thought that a good standard of living could be maintained forever through reliance on high tariff barriers and primary products exports. 5. At the same time, what is loosely called the "New Right" campaigned for wholesale deregulation of the economy, including both financial and labour markets. Financial markets were mostly deregulated. Labour markets became the battleground. 6. The ACTU did not initiate enterprise bargaining. It sought to _redirect_ what was a major push by business to deregulate labour markets. This push was often supported by the ALP. The ACTU did not push the ALP to introduce enterprise bargaining. It was always the position of the ACTU and of most affiliates that substantial workplace change could occur within the framework of the industrial awards that regulate wages and conditions in Australia. Most awards are minimum rates awards only, and can allow for substantial bargaining over and above it. 7. In response to determination by the ALP under pressure from business to formally introduce enterprise bargaining into industrial law and awards, the ACTU sought to have such agreements being only between unions and companies rather than between individuals or non-union groups and companies. The ALP nevertheless introduced the concept of non-union enterprise agreements. To date union opposition to such non-union agreements has meant that they are only about 1% of registered federal enterprise agreements. However, there are a lot of informal individual contracts in non-unionised industries, and the law has allowed their use in unionised areas where the union has been weak (as in the case of CRA mines where the Australian Workers' Union is/was dominant). 8. It was not possible for the ACTU to outright reject enterprise bargaining, despite its mis-givings, for two reasons: - strong unions in unionised sectors of the economy were capable of winning wage rises under enterprise agreements and often wanted to do so. Their members were certainly not going to undertake industrial action against it. - weak unions in poorly unionised sectors were not capable of delivering effective opposition There is no point in flatly rejecting what your constituents/membership are not prepared to go to the wall to stop. It makes you look stupid and marginal. 9. There is a degree of hypocrisy in those who criticize the ACTU and the labour movement for moving away from centralised wage-fixing and towards enterprise bargaining because it leaves behind the un-unionised and marginal groups. When centralised wage-fixing was very much the thing, eg. in 1983-85, it was criticized by many of the same people for restricting the power of unionists to wage class war against business in the workplace. Back then, centralised wage fixing was the enemy
