Barry wrote in the Progressing the debate thread:

And what about a practical struggle that is about to occur over the industrial relations reforms? I just don't know what to make of it all. Does anyone have a developed opinion?

I don't have a developed opinion, not having studied Howard's proposed reforms, I just know that the Unions are against and that Doug Cameron (AMWU) said that it would backfire on Howard and "mark the end of the Howard government":

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union also fears the changes will have a negative impact on families.

The national secretary of the union, Doug Cameron, says the Government reforms are stripping back rights that Australian workers have had for 100 years.

"I think John Howard is making a massive political mistake today," he said.

"I think today marks the end of the Howard Government.

"The Australian community will not accept these rights being stripped away.

"Security for working families is being trashed on the ideology of John Howard and I think you will see a massive backlash against the Government."

I'm extremely sceptical about Doug Cameron's remarks.

Multinational or transnationals today have global supply chains that stretch across many countries. Outsourcing of labour to countries, such as India, offering the same service at cheaper wages has become common place. Globalisation is going to increase not decrease.

At the same time old industries are dying and new ones are being created. The Web didn't even exist fifteen years ago but now various Web services are an enormous, vibrant and growing industry employing thousands of people globally, perhaps millions. Flexible labour laws obviously makes this transition from old to new easier.

With globalisation the world is becoming flatter - free trade agreements are popular these days - but also the cake is becoming bigger. Wages in India will increase, consumption in India will increase.

Where does all this leave Australian Unions? Probably, not in a good place, certainly in a bad place if they don't understand the way the world is changing and adapt their policies in a dynamic way to match those changes.

Thomas Friedman, who I would describe as a far sighted American patriot / capitalist, advocates in this situation:

The social contract that progressives should try to enforce between government and workers, and companies and workers, is one in which government and companies say, "We cannot guarantee you any lifetime employment. But we can guarantee you that government and companies will focus on giving you the tools to make you more lifetime employable". The whole mindset of a flat world is one in which the individual worker is going to become more and more responsible for managing his or her own career, risks, and economic security, and the job of government and business is to help workers build the necessary muscles to do that.
- The World is Flat, 284

To be honest, my current mindset is that Australian Unions are not adapting to the new realities of globalisation. Without endorsing Friedman's position, I simply put it forward at this stage as more nutritious food for thought than the Doug Cameron rhetoric.

Last week, (01/06/05 ish) there were protests against the Howard government's IR policy. In Adelaide, there was an estimated 200 people attended.  I suspect it was less.  So much for the "massive backlash"  against the Howard government.  (Howard is in fact almost never more popular as now) This lack of ability to back up rhetoric, with bums on seats, shows that there is no mass support against the overall agenda, or specifically, the unfair dismissal laws. 

When you look at it; it is the co-worker who often loses, when it is difficult to sack staff who are not pulling their weight, ieither from lack of skill, or correct attitude etc.   These laws, were really about protecting Trade Union officials /delegates from dismissal, and so it is no surprise, that it is they who are rallying in support of their maintenance.  

The membership statistics tell the tale; there is little confidence in the unions, or their approach.  It is only kidding oneself to think that there is really anything at all progressive about the current Union movement.  Busy as they are, almost universally, in holding back the development of technology, on the basis that we supposedly have to save jobs. 

There is  i suppose the possibility that a campaign, or some public awareness, could be built, in the lead up to the legislation coming up, but I don't think there is enough good will towards the unions, and i estimate that as an issue, it really has a marginal impact upon the workers themselves. 

What is really going on out there in business land, is that skilled employees are in demand, and once found are unlikely to be 'unfairly dismissed'.   Staff recruitment is the No.1 hassle for business, and they naturally want to do, as little of it as possible. So, when businesses have recruited staff they want to keep them, not dismiss them. 

In light of these imperatives, it is very plain to see that  the actual provisions relate only to a tiny minority of the work place and so there can be no massive backlash on the horizon.   

it is interesting to see that after the no vote in france there has been a lot of soul searching by the media and the government.

 there has also been similar analysis from other european countries as to why the opposition to the european union is so strong.

 the most common link is the state of the economies of these countries and subsequently talk of countries such as italy leaving the euro and returning to the lira. ( what short memories the italians must have of that pathetic currency).

 the talk is of course that england dıd not adopt the euro and is not subject to the labour laws of the other european countries. The french in particular (the beourgoisıe that is) are jealous of the fact  england had growth of 3.1 % last year while the euro zone was 1.8%.

unemployment in france is more than double that of england at 10.2% and 23.3% for under 25s.

the french government would like to break up the unions in order to free the labour market and also to privatize such areas as the railways etc.

They are not confidant that they can do this but recognize the economy is suffering. they are also aware of the farm lobby which is also holding the economy back.

Trade unions tend to hold back development and progress. They are an added cost that is unnecessary and serves no positive purpose.

 they can be likened in terms of economic efficiency to corruption in places like china and indonesia although they dont have the same instability that those types of inefficiencies cause.

One has an extra bureaucracy to deal with and an extra cost which has an amount of uncertanty about it.

The fact that unions are so weak also means that they can generally only play a spoiler role of slowing down the inevitable.

 if they have any influence  you end up with something that has contradictions which make it less effective. Trade unions are not pro active but re actionary!!!

Interesting comments tom about the situation in Europe.

I just read an article about The End of Europe

Wherever they look, Western Europeans feel their way of life threatened. One solution to low birthrates is higher immigration. But many Europeans don't like the immigrants they have -- often Muslim from North Africa -- and don't want more. One way to revive economic growth would be to reduce social benefits, taxes and regulations. But that would imperil Europe's "social model," which supposedly blends capitalism's efficiency and socialism's compassion.

Consider some contrasts with the United States, as reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. With high unemployment benefits, almost half of Western Europe's jobless have been out of work a year or more; the U.S. figure is about 12 percent. Or take early retirement. In 2003 about 60 percent of Americans ages 55 to 64 had jobs. The comparable figures for France, Italy and Germany were 37 percent, 30 percent and 39 percent. The truth is that Europeans like early retirement, high jobless benefits and long vacations.

...

A few countries (Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands) have acted, and there are differences between Eastern and Western Europe. But in general Europe is immobilized by its problems. This is the classic dilemma of democracy: Too many people benefit from the status quo to change it; but the status quo isn't sustainable. Even modest efforts in France and Germany to curb social benefits have triggered backlashes. Many Europeans -- maybe most -- live in a state of delusion. Believing things should continue as before, they see almost any change as menacing.

With huge countries like India and China developing rapidly (and other Asian countries too) combined with the flattening of the global economy (global outsourcing, offshoring etc.) that countries that cling to the compassionate social model - as Europe is doing and which our trade unions want to do here - will end up in a very bad way.

This surprised me. Thomas Friedman tells how "Ireland went from the sick man of Europe to the rich man in less than a generation"

In 1990, Ireland's total work force was 1.1 million. This year it will hit two million, with no unemployment and 200,000 foreign workers (including 50,000 Chinese). Others are taking notes. Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said: "I've met the premier of China five times in the last two years."

Ireland's advice is very simple: Make high school and college education free; make your corporate taxes low, simple and transparent; actively seek out global companies; open your economy to competition; speak English; keep your fiscal house in order; and build a consensus around the whole package with labor and management - then hang in there, because there will be bumps in the road - and you, too, can become one of the richest countries in Europe.
The End of the Rainbow

I am not too sure how fast India and China are developing.



They are certainly developing faster than advanced capitalist countries but of course coming from such a low base would need too. The growth rate in percentage terms looks impressive and the GDP looks large but the capita per head is low and the percentage of GDP that is spent on capital growth is small. The unemployment rate in china is significant and rising. At the current rate of development it would seem to me that it will still be a while before they join the advanced capitalist countries.

This development is running alongside globalization which of course dilutes the signifigance of India and China as individual economies. I am not of the opinion that China and India developing is a problem for anyone else. I understand India is more developed than China but doesn't generate the same response. I assume the fascist government of China is something to do with the negative attitude to China's growth.

This seems to me to be an imperialist position: "We are the top dogs and anyone else catching up is a threat."


The quicker the underdeveloped countries develop the better it will be for all of us.


When we talk of globalisation, a world of advanced capitalist countries (that will move on to socialism), is the end game. We want the world to develop as fast as possible. One of the reasons we want socialism is because capitalism is too slow at developing the world.  The develpoment of china for example will create a huge market for the rest of the world to access and will in fact save the economies of france etc to some degree. They would be much worse off if china did not develop. While capitalism is competitive it is also dynamic, while some lose and some win in a general sense things develop and move forward.

 
I'm not sure much can be drawn from Ireland as its size is so small and they have at the minute got a niche market in europe and this could change. They are well suited to hi tech, but not sure what the future holds but doubt if they would actualy slip back in actual terms but may not be able to maintain there edge. I would liken Ireland to a medium sized city in an advanced capitalist country that was poorer than others and less developed and found gold and became a rich city.

Reviving this thread in light of Albert's post on economics. It's clear that Albert has better understanding of Marxian economics than other contributors. I would say I'm rusty but that would be too kind. I'm hoping Albert will also post to this topic, about the IR reforms.

 

Barry

About five percent of Australia's workers took part in protests today against the IR reform package. The apsect of the campaign that is about labor aristocrats struggling to maintain a semblance of authority over the working people is becoming clearer. So too are the conservative underpinnings of the campaign, especially in regards to the assumption that the 'family' of the C21st is the same as that of the early C20th when the Harvester Judgement was handed down. The desire to cling to old, out-dated, reactionary assumptions is also apparent in the union leaders' opposition to flexibility and their inability to understand that individual workers appreciate flexible arrangements rather than centralized agreements.

 

The IR legislation itself shows just how far from achieving real flexibility the government is. It is voluminous and complicated. This is what happens when conservatives attempt to do progressive things. It isn't natural to them. Howard insists, for example, that he is helping to maintain the 'traditional family' when in fact the reforms are predicated on a recognition that the old family is rapidly melting into air.

 

There's an interesting article in today's 'Australian', written by an academic from Deakin University. The article is called 'The Leftwing case for ending workplace law'.  Here it is: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17244074%255E7583,00.html  

 

Barry

 

I have not yet heard anything that really disturbs me.  Occasionally one hears critics who mostly seem to be whingeing about the impact of casualisation or individual contracts. 


Excuse me but it was the Keating government who brought in enterprise bargaining that required negotiations re productivity gains and presumably each worker signing an individual contract.  The workers didn't want this, but the unions went along with it.  Also, on the question of casualisation even the union movement employs casual labour,  and even full time labour on a casual basis so they have not been able to  structure things  differently  so as  to provide all  workers with the  ft  permanency...



 In this case i think that the need for  national  consistency outweighs the supposed bad elements of the 'reforms'.    


In almost every sector i can think of the unions are holding things back.  Nursing for instance would benefit from moving to 12 hour shifts in more if not all areas.  This is almost heresy to talk about.  Patient care would benefit from moving over to electronic note-taking but again is being held back with trials getting little support from the necessary areas. 


What concerns me more is the policy re single parents entering what the minister calls 'work' when he means employment.  It was so sickening hearing him go on about how single parents don't work, and how this is very bad for children.  Well, what about the child raising and domestic work taking place, and the volunteer work of unemployed parents in schools, and sporting clubs.  Very short sighted.  Other reforms can be undone with a change of national government what is positive is the standardisation leading to a massive simplification for administration. 

Hi Anita

 

Individual contracts are signed under Enterprise Bargaining as they were under awards. The point is that just as Enterprise Bargains superceded awards so will Australian Workplace Agreements (individual contracts) superceed Enterprise Bargains. The objection to this whole process is that it is an attempt to erode the collective power of workers. The smaller the barganing unit of the employee the greater is the shift of power to the employer.

 

The Unions did not go along with the introduction of Enterprise Bargains. The line of the United Trades and Labor Council was to oppose their introduction. Many unions did not put up much of a fight as I think that they saw the writting on the wall.

 

As to casual labour Unions dont oppose casual labour hell my union recruits them as members. What the Union movement opposes is the trend to declaring permanent positions as casual ones in an attempt to strip workers of the benifits that accrue to permanent employees.

 

Now I must make a confession I was elected to the Branch Council of the local Nurses Union and have been a nurse for 30 years so I do have some experience about the issues that you raise.

 

12 hour shifts for nurses. The union has been fighting management at our local psychiatric hospital where management has been trying to get rid of them.

 

12 hour shifts are not popular among nurses who work in physically demanding wards such as medical and surgical areas as the staff are often spent after 8 hours.

 

As to your claim that the nurses union is holding back progressive change I think that you should take more care. Let me illistrate this with some examples from my own experience.

 

Introduction of Occupational Health and Saftey Reps Demanded by the Union opposed by management

Introduction of a no lift policy demanded by the Union opposed by management (thats why management were forced to invest in lifting machinery)

 

12 point plan for mental health initiated by the union resisted by the government Union members through work bans only 2 months ago squeesed $5 million out of the state government for mental health.

 

When I worked at the Julia Farr Center management decided to reduce nursing hours for patients from 7/24 to 2.78/24 Most of the patients are quadraplegics or have an equivalent condition for 3 years we the nurses through our union fought this. Management always refered to the need for flexibility.

 

The union is currently implimenting 10 hour night duty shifts in every area that nurses want them. Management is not happy. (the 10 hour night duty was a successful demand in our most recent EB)

 

Workloads: it was the Union that won binding workload agreements replacing the old managerial clinical judgment system. ( under the clinical judgment system we would work with what ever staff that the boss thought we needed) 

 

In the last EB the union won a concession that nuses working in lead aprons would be provided with the new low wieght ones management opposed this. (One of my fellow unionists brought a lead apron along to the EB negotiations and invited the governments negotiators to wear it for a day and then to discuss their opposition  to lightwieght ones)

 

The union campaigned for tertiary education for nurses well before management conceeded it usefulness. In the 80s and 90s the union ran industrial campaigns to get nurses professional parity wages a move resisted by employers.

 

Now I could go on like this for quite awhile but I won't Ill just make the point that overwhelmingly the nurses union is at the forefront of progressive change in the health system. The people that are a drag on progressive change reside in parliament house or in the offices of management.

 

Lets leave nurses and look at the IR legislation.

 

The guts of it is that for workplaces of less than 100 those workers will loose their right to be covered by the unfair dismissal laws and be reduced  to being covered by the illegal dissmisal laws. This is a significant reduction in the conditions of work for many employees.

 

Now the choice is yours side with John Howard or with the hundreds of thousands of workers who are engauged in industrial action in opposing these changes.

 

 

When I first read "The Leftwing case for ending workplace law" I was struck by the sheer absurdity of the title since the content was the traditional (right wing) argument against union collective organizing as less efficient than the operation of free markets. Barry's link to it here actually endorses that right wing case.


Likewise Anita, Tom and Bill's postings in this topic present variations on the fundamentally liberal case that unions are holding back progress and free markets are more flexible and efficient.


Steve's reply presents the traditional laborist/reformist (as opposed to "pseudo-left" in this instance) case for defending the unions.


Hostility to the unions as a conservative force getting in the way of things is natural here and a certain amount of schadenfreud about their accelerated dismantling is understandable. But the leftwing case for weakening the union "movement" is very different from the liberal case being presented in this thread, just as Marx's opposition to protectionism because it aimed at preserving the status quo while revolutionaries naturally prefer the dynamism of free trade was very different from the liberal free traders case that globalization was for the benefit of the workers rather than for their profits.


 The leftwing case against workplace laws that prop up the unions is a natural extension of our experience organizing workers in the workplaces when there actually was some semblance of a genuine left in Australia. The main problem we ran into was the unions - both as direct opponents actively assisting the bosses to isolate activists and as a dominant bourgeois ideology among the workers that looked for do-gooder saviours such as union officials to solve their day to day problems instead of their own self activity as a class.


Steve's defence of that position is a classic example of the second problem. He attributes everything progressive that nurses have fought for to "the union" and assumes that weakening the union will undermine the ability of nurses to either defend existing conditions or advance.


Undermining workers conditions by weakening unions is indeed Howard's aim and perspective just as "Free Trade" in the 19th century was, and "globalization" today is, aimed at increasing profit for capital, not at accelerating the pre-conditions for the self emancipation of the workers.

 References to the greater flexibility achievable by weakening the unions is part of Howard's right wing case, not part of the left's case. Presenting things that way, as those disagreeing with Steve have done, one might just as well go on to argue explicitly for lowering wages in order to reduce unemployment (which is also perfectly true, but more obviously part of the right wing case).


The starting point for a left wing analysis has to be the effect of workplace law on the capacity of workers for self organization to become conscious of themselves as a class.


Whereas once unions were part of that process of self organization, they are now bureaucratic corporatist structures holding it back by feeding the sort of delusions about "union" victories that Steve is expressing.


 Weakening the unions certainly will enable bosses to win some struggles more easily and it will especially encourage a wider differential in wages and conditions between the best organized and worst organized enterprises and workplaces. That is the whole point (with consequences such as soaking up some youth unemployment by being able to offer kids more low wage jobs being only a side effect).


There are obvious limits to that process since in fact wages and conditions within each workplace and enterprise are influenced far more by the state of the economy as a whole and the overall class struggle than by the situation in particular industries, enterprises and workplaces.


This is obvious given the fundamental nature of a capitalist economy in which wage labor and capital are commodities that flow freely in response to price signals. Rates of profit being higher in one area than another cause capital to move towards the higher and wages and conditions being higher in one area than another causes the supply of labor to move towards the higher (including immigration). This causes corresponding reduction in the supply of capital in the low profit areas and in the supply of labor in the low wage areas with corresponding price movements in a dynamic equilibrium depending on price elasticities etc.


That is how market economies work and they cannot work any other way. This is simply elementary. That flexibility and dynamism is an essential part of capitalism and the right wing case that the hidden costs of the artificial limitations created by inflexible workplace laws actually reduce overall productivity more than what will be lost by less organized workers when the differential are allowed to grow as a result of workplace reform, may well be correct.


 Equally elementary is the dialectical essence of the left wing case for supporting greater dynamism and flexibility in workplace laws just as we do in trade laws and international relations. We want to encourage workers to get organized.


Having no grasp of dialectics Howard may think that removing barriers to wider differentials will simply be an advantage to bosses in undermining conditions in less organized workplaces. A more all sided analysis tells us that this means workers who continue to rely on unions or any other saviour from on high to fight their battles for them will pay a direct economic price. They will learn that "if you don't fight you'll lose" just as those who do fight will learn "dare to struggle, dare to win".


The long term result will be more organized workplaces just as the long term result of the unions substitution for actual organizations of workers has been to undermine the capacity of workers to organize themselves.

Steve,

As can be seen my quick posts on this topic leave out too much and appear as an attack specifically upon nurses and their union.  (In fact, the nurses strike of the 1980s over wages led by Irene Bolger was inspirational, the change over to University as opposed to hospital-based-training, and the HECS sell-out a much less inspirational 'accomplishment')


Attacking nurses is not my intention and was more me quickly plucking out an example  where work place reform is long overdue.  I am glad to hear that the nurses union has accepted moves away from the 8 hour-day with the introduction of the 10 hour night-shift. 


My views are based upon my own experience of being a patient, and having family members as nurses, and a  'marriage' to a psyche nurse who worked 12 hour shifts, 2 days on and 2 days off, and then when doing nights, worked 3 nights on, and 3 off. 


These shift arrangements accorded a lifestyle out-of-hours of employment that 9-5ers could only dream of.   This is also along side  general  nurses  such as my sister who successfully juggled two children in day-care whilst having to turn up for day, afternoon, and or night shift, often with only a few hours break between  finishing at 9.00-10.00 pm ish and starting again at 7.00.am  This, where it occurs is contrary to good staff and patient outcomes. 


(I also think that in the interests of patient care that the wearing of acrylic nails by nursesought to be banned, and here comes the really  'right-wing' stuff, despite the fact that I love big pregnant bellies, nurses ought not to be allowed to work on the wards when they have them. ie in the third trimester)


Anyway, when I was at the Royal Adelaide show (September) I was stopped by a Trade Unionist  spruiking about the IR reforms.  I gave him a fair hearing but all he could say was things will be unfairer.  (That did not work) Recently a friend who is 'actively looking for work' and participating in job netwroks said that she thought it would lead to lower wages.  I can't see this myself, and wonder why, if it was so that wages will be lowered why does the union campaign not reflect this aspect of the package?


Also, with regard to the unfair dismissal laws I make the observation that since their introductrion employers have bypassed their impact by speeding up the process of casualisation, and as we now see government departments (Centrelink) who hire their call-centre operators via an agency  that  selects 20 applicants and further trains them on-the-job (whilst on award wages) eventually culls down to  15 people over a period of 3 months or so, and these final 15 go on to be employed by Centrelink on presumably a further trial basis.  


Anyway, back to the topic I agree that the gains made by unions are worthy of respect.  But it is so easy to be blindly unaware of their failings rather than engaged in an open and honest assessment of the material conditions.    Children awake, hoping one day to contribute more comprehensively and less off  the top of my head. 

Well I think the right is correct to argue that anything which slows down capitalism and  therefore reduces productivity and profits is bad for workers as well as their bosses.

When unions and the pseudo-left  complain about how much profit particular companies are making and then go on to suggest that the "moral" thing would be for big capitalists to make less profit, they just don't make any sense.   Less profit = less jobs. That's what a depression is.

The libertarian  right takes a more progressive stance than the conservative right on a whole range of issues - they embrace change, oppose racism and sexism, are excited by the unlocking of human potential and so on.  But they are completely wedded to capitalism and seem to have no grasp of the fundamental idea that a system based on exploitation, regardless of  its ability to raise living standards and increase social mobility will always be inferior on all counts,  to a system in which the people no longer "just work here" but actually run the place.  Nevertheless they have a much clearer idea of how capitalism works than do the pseudo left who seem to think that the world can be any way they would like it to be.

The unions no longer oppose capitalism as a system and instead push the idea that the workers need them as a protection against "rapacious" capitalists.  The new IR legislation  therefore threatens to do them out of their job because it will force workers to find new ways to organise themselves. 

It's really important for people to realise the truth about how the system works rather than to continue to have the wool pulled over their eyes by union leaders blaming unemployment and low wages on "greedy capitalists" making too much profit.  The right-wing case for IR reform at least tells it as it is.

In any case it seems to me that the current changes had to happen - just like globalization had to happen - if not now then at some point in the near future.   And as Arthur pointed out  although Howard et al  may think that the changes will only benefit the bosses , the reality is that workers will organise themselves in new ways once the old style unions can no longer "protect" them.   Doing away with a union "movement" which decieves workers about the basic nature of capitalism has to be a good thing.

Hi Keza

 

Its hard to see how the IR laws will develop Capitalism in Australia.

 

The changes to the unfair dismisal laws will mainly affect workers in small enterprises hardly the cutting edge of society shop assistants and child care workers and the like.

 

The laws also will restrict Trade Unions but its hard to make an argument that unions are holding back development. Union coverage of the workforce is at historically low levels and union activity measured in terms of days lost through strike activity are at historic lows.

 

What does hold back development is lack of expediture on infrastructure. Just look at the debate over Dalrimple Bay. Here the offending party is the state Labor government. Dam them underspending Social Democrats.

 

The other obvious brake on development is under spending on education and research. Here the main culprits are the Labor and Liberal governments that we must endure.

Just a short in response to the Irish situation. Ireland has been surviving  on EU subsidies up to the minute. The shit may hit the fan next year when those subsidies run out

While we are on unions I have a question.

 

I've met a couple of ex BLF NSW (Builders Laborers Federation New South Wales) members and they were pretty angry about the role played by the BLF federal "maoist" leaders.

 

I've read the Bergman book Green Bans Red Union where she states that the "maoist" leaders were in co operation with major developers and that these developers were involved in smashing community protest, kidnapping and murder as well as thier campaign to destroy the leadership of the BLF NSW.

 

Is this true or is there another side?

owenss
community services,  child care etc have probably been primarily under market forces for a long time if not forever. The pay for kindergarten teachers, creche workers etc has historically been low as there has always been a labour oversupply in these areas.  A residential worker recieves about $5 an hour!

Education underspending? What do you think should be spent on education and why would that change anything? Do you think we have structural unemployment that is unusual or significant? My understanding is we have people with phds driving taxis.

Under capitalism it is competition that drives research forward.

The argument is that unions are weaker and things are being freed up -  and this is a good thing. What is most interesting is the question - what will replace unions?

Will it be industry based, company based, or politically based organisations  - or some combination? For example, with globalisation it would make sense for workers at all Ford factories to be united.

Hi tomb

 

I spent a brief time as a child care worker and you are right the pay is shit. The boss was dead scared that we would join a union and therefor the bosses organised thier own staff association for us. It is precicely child care workers that will loose the protection of the unfair dismissal laws it is the child care workers who will come under the Fair pay commission a commission that doesnt have to take fairness into consideration. You are right that child care workers already face the cold winds of market forces. But as an old boss of mine said "if you only slice a loaf into 20 slices and not 25 then you are cutting into my profit margin" this was just before he hit me for standing the wrong way when he was talking to me.

 

As to education well you have probably caught me out in one of my predudices see I have a belief that no society advances without promoting education if you have phd taxi drivers then this is a necessary wastage as with mass education not every dollar spent hits the spot.

 

What makes you think that other forms of worker organisation will take the place of unions we may just end up with weak unions or as atomised individuals.

 

Love to talk more but I'm at work.

keza wrote:

The unions no longer oppose capitalism as a system and instead push the idea that the workers need them as a protection against "rapacious" capitalists.  The new IR legislation  therefore threatens to do them out of their job because it will force workers to find new ways to organise themselves. 

I think this sets up a straw man suggestion that unions were once anti capitalist and now they're not - whereas the role of unions has always been to provide a few extra crumbs to the workers and they have always been co-opted in the tweedledee / dum manner like the labour party

When unions and the pseudo-left  complain about how much profit particular companies are making and then go on to suggest that the "moral" thing would be for big capitalists to make less profit, they just don't make any sense.   Less profit = less jobs. That's what a depression is.

Similar point about the historical role of the welfare state too, now coming unstuck in Europe, Sweden etc. perhaps - with more globalisation you have to get leaner and meaner, use new technology to maximum advantage etc. Workers of my age in my workplace spend a lot of time planning on the best way to deal with their superannuation. Ah yes, if the capitalist class couldn't deliver on superannuation then that would start something big.

Thomas Friedman is pretty good on describing this sort of thing - the need to get leaner, meaner, smarter, more competitive, in The World is Flat which is written as a wake up call to save America from the arising new competitors in China, India, Asia - I suspect the real driver behind Howards changes is globalisation and that is an irreversible trend

Globalisation may impact more on some industries than others - health care, nursing for example is impacted by new technologies but always requires a labour intensive component. Similar for teaching which has been described as the last cottage industry by those frustrated with the slow uptake of technology by teachers, like myself.

If I'm right then what needs to be argued is what has changed recently to necessitate some new sort of structure or structures to represent this role for workers. Historically we've had militant unions like the Builders Labourers and bosses unions like the Vehicle Builders - but it's all been within the framework of the system.

Are unions more collaborationist than 30 years ago, for example?

What I can think of which has changed is -
1. chronic long term unemployment since peak employment in 1974 - unions have had less clout because of this, strikes and militancy have gradually declined - rank and file groups were wiped out - this has become a union mindset over the past few decades even though employment is not as bad now as it was 10-15 years ago
2. acceleration of globalisation - v. significant in terms of need for capitalist flexibility and continual restructuring, need to show more intelligence - globalisation has accelerated enormously since about 2000 from what I can gather, about the time we first heard about IT jobs going to India
3. what else? Perhaps management techniques have become more sophisticated even though that seems to vary a lot from workplace to workplace

There is enormous individual variation from workplace to workplace often depending on the particular boss and the particular union rep. If Steve can do good work in the current framework with his union then good luck to him. Even though I'm sure he could think of a couple of unsatisfactory things about his union too, if he put his mind to it.

I don't see why new forms of workers organisation would necessarily be any better or worse than the current forms.  At any rate the argument needs to be situated in a more accurate historical perspective IMO.

I don't like either the union campaign (fear mongering, the boss will sack me if I can't get a baby sitter) or Howard's campaign (we just want to rationalise complex bureaucracy) because both avoid the key issue or driver of what is behind what is happening - accelerated globalisation

As Bill says, unions in general never opposed capitalism as such and there is nothing new about them pushing the idea that workers need them as protection against rapacious capitalists.

Nor is that idea false any more than it is false for the Australian Wheat Board to claim it plays some role in protecting the interests of Australian wheat growers.

Key point is that unions once ALSO played a role in developing the class consciousness of workers whereas now they predominantly play a role in stultifying it.

"No saviour from on high delivers, no trust have we in prince or peer" is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the current union "movement" - which is much closer to the social welfare/do gooder industry generally cultivating dependency and helplessness among "clients" of the welfare/pauper state.

I'd link this issue less to "globalizatgion" and much more to the capitalist tendency towards pauperization Marx identified (for which the "politically correct" term is "welfare state" and we are supposed to be grateful that such a high proportion of the population are dependent on the state for income as an "achievement" of social-democracy rather than a symptom of capitalism being moribund).