By Melanie Sjoberg
The Liberal-Democrat deal on the amendments to the Workplace Relations Bill will very seriously undermine the ability of working people to organise effectively in defence of their interests. This is what the government intended all along.
Alan Wood, reporting in the November 2 Australian, summed up the real impact of the proposed bill: "The tougher compliance provisions against unlawful industrial action are likely to prove its most effective force for change". In particular it will do this through its outlawing of "secondary boycott" or solidarity actions by unions.
The Democrats have persistently claimed that they support the protection of vulnerable workers. Senator Andrew Murray stated in the debate on the bill in Parliament on August 22 that they believed the balance between employers and employees needed to be fairer "rather than being stacked against vulnerable workers, particularly women and young people".
This was the sweet victory the Democrats proclaimed when they achieved agreement not to extend harsh penalties for secondary boycotts to consumer and environmental boycotts. They have, however, supported the reinstatement of severe constraints against other forms of industrial action by workers in solidarity with 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of the community which may be under attack.
The absolute irony is that the Democrats still attempt to maintain their support within the community by sloganeering around the "keep the bastards honest" theme. It's time the same motivation was applied internally. At a recent meeting in Adelaide of the apprentices group IRATE, one young Democrat member pouted that the Democrats hadn't "sold out" on any of their policies. What is the Democrat policy in relation to secondary boycotts?
One section of the Democrat industrial relations policy states that they "oppose common law penalties for secondary boycotts and oppose the reintroduction of 45D & E of the Trade Practices Act. (Secondary boycotts should continue to be dealt with promptly as industrial matters by the industrial tribunal.)"
The provisions of the secondary boycott amendment do not even contain a cap on the amount of damages that a corporation could claim against individuals or trade unions involved in what are deemed to be secondary boycott actions. This does not seem to strike a fair balance for vulnerable workers.
After reading the amendment, one is left wondering if the Democrats are aware of the extent of the damage that they have allowed. Not only does the amendment condemn working class action, it also appears to prevent trade unions participating in secondary boycotts related to environmental and consumer issues.
The agreed exemption applies only to individuals or organisations "whose primary purpose is the protection of the environment or the protection of consumers. The exemption is not to apply to conduct which is, or involves, industrial action." So what kind of action can working-class people take to protect the environment, for example?
If you are employed in a chemical company which is leaking toxic material into the water system, you would not be able to put a work ban on the processing of those chemicals. If you are employed in a factory which is spewing black smoke into the atmosphere, you could not organise strike action to demand that the company clean up its act. If a shipment of uranium is being brought down to the waterfront, you could not organise fellow workers to picket the wharf. Perhaps workers can organise their workplace to recycle its paper!
The Democrats claim that they are concerned about vulnerable workers, especially women and young people. A significant majority of women and young people are employed in non-unionised workplaces. Protection of conditions for these workers will be made more difficult without the opportunity for collective supportive action. If a group of retail workers ban the receipt of clothing from a manufacturer renowned for exploiting migrant women outworkers, will they face a fine of thousands of dollars?
The actual meaning of "secondary boycott" is also vague. Is it a secondary boycott if CPSU members working in the current CES refuse to cooperate with any newly created private labour market providers? Is it a secondary boycott if Taxation Office workers place bans to defend fellow CPSU members facing job cuts in another government agency?
Even trade union officials have been silent on the potential impact of this change. The ACTU has only vaguely referred to a lobbying exercise with the Democrats, asking them to stick to their policy. The Maritime Union of Australia has approached the Democrats following concerns that it may be penalised for taking action against shipowners guilty of human rights abuses. Andrew Murray has indicated that they will seek clarification on the human rights aspect, but they would not reconsider the industrial aspects.
It is true that the previous secondary boycott legislation was not used extensively against trade unions or workers taking action, but it also did not sit idle. We are now in a different political climate, in which attacks on working-class gains, the public sector and social welfare are becoming more intense. It would be an ostrich approach to suggest that the new opportunities will not be utilised by the corporate sector. Workers will need to be more vigilant and more prepared to fight to maintain our collective solidarity.