SPECIAL REPORT: the Abbott Government after 12 months Pages 6-7

www.workinglife.org.auIssue 14, September 2014

INDEPENDENT Senator John Madigan has confirmed he will oppose the Abbott Government’s Fair Work Amendment Bill, leaving opponents of the Bill needing to find just two more votes to block the legislation.

Senator Madigan is the first cross-bench Senator to definitively declare how he will vote, and has urged other independents and minor party Senators to hold firm against the Bill, which reintroduces individual contracts that could be used by employers

to cut pay and conditions.Senator Madigan’s decision has raised

hopes that at least two more Senators – either South Australian Independent Nick Xenophon and Australian Motoring Enthusiasts’ Ricky Milne, or the Palmer United Party bloc – will also vote no.

The Victorian Senator publicly announced his position on the Bill on 25 September. The Bill had been due to be voted on by the Senate that week, but was delayed by other urgent business.

Senator Madigan said the amendments were an attack on workers and would leave those with the least with even less.

“The individual contracts being pushed by Tony Abbott are worse than those of former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard,” Senator Madigan said.

“I will not stand-by and allow the workers of this country to return to a WorkChoices-style arrangement.

“These amendments to the Fair Work Continued on page 4

Fair Work changes hang in the balance

by MARK PHILLIPS Madigan comes out against amendments

Your work. Your life. Your news & views.

BY the end of Qantas’ current “transformation”, 5000 hardworking Australians will have

lost their jobs.But one man will still have his.He is the airline’s CEO, Alan Joyce,

who has presided over the announcement of not only the worst financial loss in the company’s history, but one of the worst in the annals of corporate Australia.

Qantas recorded a full year loss, after tax, of $2.8 billion in 2013-14, bringing accumulated losses over the past three years to more than $3 billion.

Last year’s result sparked immediate outcry, with calls for Joyce to resign.

But the CEO, who in 2012-13 enjoyed a 45% pay rise to $3.3 million, including a cash bonus of $775,000, is holding firm and insisting the worst is over.

He blamed the result on the effect of two years of market capacity growth outstripping demand, high fuel costs, and a collapse in domestic travel demand, particularly the mining and government sectors. Indeed, over the years, Joyce has become adept at blaming everyone but himself for Qantas’ turmoil.

“There’s no doubt that today’s numbers are confronting,” he said on results day, 28 August. “But they represent the year that is past, and we have now come through the worst.

“With our accelerated Qantas Transformation program, we are already emerging as a leaner, more focused, and sustainable Qantas Group. Our work is on track and we will see accelerating benefits in the coming year.”

Five thousand Qantas employees may beg to differ.

That’s the number of jobs Joyce said would be cut when when he announced Qantas’ “transformation strategy” back in February of this year. Half of that number

have already left the airline, forcing the company to pay out $370 million in redundancies last year.

But for long-suffering Qantas employees, the “transformation” has been happening since Joyce took control in 2008. This has included corporate restructuring, offshoring of jobs, and a failed bid to convince the government to allow Qantas to be sold to an overseas airline. The latest move is to create a new corporate structure to turn Qantas International into a holding company.

Australian Services Union Assistant National Secretary Linda White said it was time for a fresh approach at Qantas.

“It is time for Alan Joyce and the Board to do the decent thing to save Qantas – resign – so that Qantas and the remaining staff have a fighting chance of saving this great airline,” she said.

While he did not go so far as to call for Joyce’s head, the National Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union,

Tony Sheldon, was just as scathing in blaming the company’s woes had to be sheeted home to a lack of competent management.

“These are disastrous results for Qantas,” Mr Sheldon said.

“Qantas workers and the Australian community were hoping to hear a strategy for growth, and a turnaround in the airline’s finances.

“Instead they were offered more losses, more restructures and more excuses.”

But it is not only Qantas employees who have suffered.

The airline’s share price has fallen by more than 40% since the day Joyce was announced as the new CEO in July 2008, wiping billions off the company’s value for investors, and the company’s shares have at times been perilously close to junk status.

The last time shareholders were paid a dividend was in the first half of 2009, when it was 6 cents a share.

GET IN TOUCHWant to know more or get involved? Contact our newsdesk by email at editor@workinglife.org.au or phone (03) 9664 7266. Or get in touch by Facebook (facebook.com/ThisWorkingLife) or Twitter (twitter/thisworkinglife).

Editor: Mark Phillips. Responsibility for election comment is taken by Dave Oliver, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, 365 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000. .org.au

Hall of Shame

2 .org.au September 2014

After a $2.8 billion loss, how does this man still have a job?

REVELATIONS that the compensation fund set up by James Hardie for asbestos victims could face a financial shortfall within three years have reopened old sores, with the company being accused of putting its own profits ahead of the interests of asbestos sufferers.

Asbestos support groups and unions have slammed James Hardie after the company informed the Australian Securities Exchange that the likelihood of a shortfall in the funding of claims in 2017 would mean asbestos victims being paid compensation in instalments, rather than a lump sum.

It comes after James Hardie in May reported a doubling of its full-year net profit to US$99.5 million ($110.5 million).

The ACTU has written to James Hardie chief executive officer Louis Gries with a “please explain” and is seeking a full briefing with the company about the financial state of the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund, which was set up in 2006 as a special purpose fund to compensate asbestos sufferers with claims against former James Hardie group subsidiaries.

The establishment of the AICF came after a union-led campaign against the company that was the subject of the book and ABC-TV mini-series Devil’s Dust.

Under the legal agreement signed between James Hardie and the NSW Government in 2005, the building products company is required to contribute up to 35% of its net operating cashflow to the AICF until 2045.

Since 2007, James Hardie has contributed $721.4 million to the fund, including $119.9 million transferred on 1 July. The fund also has access to a $320 million loan facility with the NSW Government.

But problems have emerged with the fund because the number of Australians dying from asbestos is still climbing, with a spike in the number of cases of mesothelioma. It has previously been

estimated that up to 18,000 Australians will have died from mesothelioma by 2020, with many of them contracting the disease at work.

Meanwhile, the company last month paid out US$231.4 million ($256.7 million) in dividends, bringing its total dividend payments since the second half of 2012 to US$743.6 million ($825 million).

Barry Robson, president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia, said the move by the AICF to pay victims by instalments was a “slap in the face”.

Mr Robson said the community would rightly be outraged at James Hardie’s “immoral behaviour”, particularly as Mr Gries is now reportedly being paid almost $12 million a year.

“Asbestos victims don’t die in instalments, they don’t lose the ability to work or care for themselves in instalments, yet James Hardie wants to see them compensated in that way,” he said.

“James Hardie spent decades knowingly selling these deadly products that to this

day are still found in millions of homes and workplaces around Australia, leading to a growing number of home renovators and others in the community being exposed to asbestos fibres.

“The death toll . . . is still rising, with more Australians now dying each year from asbestos related diseases than the total number who die on the roads. These diseases are particularly devastating and require costly medical care.”

Unions have also joined the fray, with the ACTU secretary, Dave Oliver, seeking an urgent briefing from Mr Gries on the current and projected financial situation of the AICF.

“It is unacceptable to sufferers of asbestos related diseases that their right to compensation and their ongoing care has been put at risk by a company driven by profits rather than their legal and moral responsibility to ensure the ongoing viability of the fund,” he said.

3.org.au

Anger as James Hardie seeks to change compo payments

At Work

September 2014

by MARK PHILLIPS

TAKE ACTIONJoin the campaign at:asbestosfreefuture.com.au

What would Bernie think? The late Bernie Banton was the public face of the campaign to make James Hardie pay up to asbestos victims.

Fair Work changes hang in the balanceContinued from page 1

Act go against what is fair. If these amendments pass, employees have everything to lose while employers stand to gain all.

“That is not reasonable, not fair and stinks of WorkChoices.

“These amendments would allow an employer to take away the rights of their workers in an individual contract, to hide that contract from outside scrutiny and prevent a worker from receiving any form of compensation if the individual contract is found to be unfair.”

Senator Madigan’s announcement is the first sign that a concerted campaign led by the ACTU is having an impact on the way Senators vote.

Face-to-face meetings have been held with most of the cross-bench Senators, while more than 20,000 people have contacted them through email or over the phone.

They have also been posting comments on the Australian Unions website.

The Bill has four critical changes to the Fair Work Act which unions say would be detrimental for workers.

The most important of these is the use of “enhanced” individual flexibility agreements – or individual contracts – which would enable employers to dictate pay and workplace standards as a condition of employment.

These new contracts would allow pay to be traded off for non-monetary benefits, and would be negotiated in private without any oversight by the independent workplace umpire.

A second change would be to allow employers to write their own “greenfields” agreements without a role for unions, while the Bill would also allow employers to veto industrial action by refusing to bargain with workers.

A fourth concern is the Bill would make it harder for workers to be represented at work by putting additional hurdles in the way of unions to meet with workers at their workplace.

Senator Madigan’s announcement is critical, but ACTU President Ged Kearney urged the rest of the cross-bench Senators to also vote against the Bill.

“The Abbott Government is determined to deliver what business and employers want, and swing the pendulum back to

them,” Ms Kearney said.“This means more insecurity at work

and less rights at work.“If three out of the eight Senate

crossbenchers vote no to the Fair Work Amendment Bill – Tony Abbott’s attacks on workers will be defeated.

“That’s why we are appealing to all of the crossbench Senators to stand with Australian workers to protect their rights at work.”

Two other crucial Bills are expected to face votes before the end of the Parliamentary year.

Changes to the Fair Entitlements Guarantee would see redunancy payments under the scheme capped at a maximum of 16 weeks. A Senate inquiry has been held into this Bill.

Meanwhile, government plans to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission are no certainty, with the Palmer United Party refusing to commit to supporting it.

4 .org.au September 2014

Voting no: Victorian Senator John Madigan says he will oppose the Bill.

TAKE ACTIONJoin the campaign at:australianunions.org.au

AT A GLANCE: Abbott’s Fair Work changes

Here are the key amendments that the Abbott Government is seeking to make to the Fair Work Act:

• The return of individual contracts: The Bill opens the way for the most insidious aspect of Workchoices – individual contracts that can cut take home pay. These were emphatically rejected by the Australians in 2007 as they resulted in the exploitation of workers.

• Gives employers a veto over industrial action: The changes would allow employers to prevent lawful industrial action by simply refusing to bargain. This would in effect give the employer a right of veto over employees taking industrial action.

• Allows employers to write their own greenfields “agreements”: This Bill creates a special rule for a special group of employers, such as those in the mining and construction industries, allowing them to reach agreement with themselves. The Bill allows these companies to simply write their own workplace agreement if they do not reach agreement with the relevant union within three months.

• Makes it harder for workers to be represented at work: The Bill changes the right of entry rules for workers’ representatives making it harder, and sometimes impossible, to have discussion with their representatives in their own time at work.

BRITAIN’s trade union movement has wrapped up its annual congress in Liverpool with a united determination to reverse the decline in workers’ living standards since the Global Financial Crisis.

With widening inequality from years of pay freezes and austerity policies, the running theme of the congress, held in a city that has always flown its union colours with pride, was ‘Britain needs a pay rise’.

This was a catchcry in particular among unions that represent workers in the public sectors throughout the country – Unite, GMB, NUT, PCS and UNISON.

The key demand for a £1/hour wage increase across the entire sector was the main factor behind a public sector general strike on 10 July.

Local and public service workers were offered a 1% nominal pay rise this year, despite the rising costs of living and public pay freezes having already eroded their purchasing power by £2000 since 2010

Frances O’Grady, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Congress, highlighted the concerns regarding Britain’s growing income inequality, and the importance of the upcoming 18 October day of action in her opening address to the congress.

“Now, economic growth is back, yet there is no sign of it in the people’s pay packets,” she said.

“In fact, the income gap has gotten worse. The chief executives of the biggest companies now earn 175 times the wages of an average worker.

“You’d think that with the beginning of the economic recovery, the government would help to repair household budgets and share the proceeds of growth more fairly,” O’Grady said.

“Yet the majority of jobs that are being created and low-paid and insecure.

“We want to send a message to the British politicians across the board that Britain needs a pay rise – this is what a real recovery looks like.”

Jane Carolan, from the giant UNISON which has 1.3 million members, spoke about the threat that privatisation poses to the public services and their workers.

“Let’s face it, every privatisation . . . has proven to be inefficient, less responsive to the need and dedicated to screwing more money out of customers,” she said.

“Privatisation has been about increasing profits for the multinational companies. That is what NHS legislation is about – not patient care or improved health.”

Paul Novak, the TUC Assistant General Secretary, highlighted the severe reduction in real wages experienced by public sector workers.

“The wages of public sector workers across the board have been reduced by 20% throughout the life of the sitting Parliament,” he said.

“Our ‘Britain Needs A Pay Rise’ campaign is meant to put pressure on

politicians and the employers in the lead up to the 2015 General Election that more must be done in order to reward working people.

“What we will see on 18 October is hundreds of thousands of public sector workers taking action on pay, and the TUC will also be holding a national massive demonstration in London under the banner ‘Britain Needs A Pay Rise’.

“On that demonstration, we will not only see trade unionists, but also men and women, black and white, young and old, people coming from right across the country together under that banner.

“I think in many ways, it sends a very clear message to the politicians of this country that we are very serious about this matter.”

5.org.auSeptember 2014

Where’s our pay rise? demand UK public sector workers

World News

Britain needs a pay rise: TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady (front left) with union members in Liverpool. Photo: TUC/Jess Hurd

by DENIS ROGATYUK

Read more world news at:workinglife.org.au

Abbott’s first year

SUNDAY, 7 September marked the first anniversary of the election of the Abbott Government.

Despite the promise of “no surprises”, there have been plenty of them over the past 12 months.

The team at Working Life has trawled over the past year to discover 10 things we have learnt about the Abbott Government:

1They would cut minimum wages and abolish penalty

rates if they could.A surprise recommendation of the

National Commission of Audit was to firstly freeze the minimum wage at its current rate of 44% of average earnings, and then abolish the annual wage review process altogether. The government has since failed to rule this out, and no wonder when you have people like new Family First Senator Bob Day calling for the scrapping of a minimum wage for young people. And Bob Day is not the only one calling for wages and penalty rates to be slashed; there are plenty of government MPs doing the same.

2WorkChoices – not cremated, just sedated.

Employment Minister Eric Abetz boasted in the media that the government has “neutralised” voters’ concerns about bringing back WorkChoices. But at the same time, he is chipping away at laws protecting workers rights, wages and conditions trying push through Parliament changes to the Fair Work Act. Most significantly, the changes before the Senate would strip away current protections around individual contracts and make it easier for employers to force workers to give up their penalty rates.

3 Big business is now running the government.

It was not enough for Tony Abbott to appoint Maurice Newman as chairman of his Business Advisory Council. A host of other high-profile business people have also been given plumb jobs with major influence on government policies, including former Business Council of Australia President Tony Shepherd, who chaired the Commission of Audit, mining

magnate Andrew Forrest, who recently handed down the recommendations of his review into Indigenous welfare, and climate change sceptic Dick Warburton to review the Renewable Energy Target.

4There is no plan for jobs – except jobs for the boys.

Last month, Australia’s unemployment rate grew to 6.4%. This is not only the worst result in 12 months, but for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis, Australia now has a higher jobless rate than the United States. The jobless rate is worse for young people at 20.4%, and there is no sign of improvement on the horizon. In opposition, Tony Abbott boasted of creating a million new jobs in five years, but he has still to produce a credible plan for jobs.

5Your industry can go stuff itself – unless you work for

Cadbury.When Tony Abbott came to office,

Australia still had two committed domestic carmakers. In a few years’ time,

we will have none. Both GM Holden and Toyota sought assurances from Abbott and Joe Hockey that co-investment be continued but none was came. SPC Ardmona had doors slammed in its face when it sought $25 million in assistance to modernise its Shepparton plant. It’s in sharp contrast to the $16 million Abbott promised to Cadbury’s Hobart plant, no questions asked, last election. But, of course, Cadbury is in a marginal seat.

6You will work longer and have less to retire on.

One of the big shocks of Abbott’s first year has been to raise the retirement age to 70 from 2035. But not only will people be forced to work longer to get the pension, but by 2030 it will be worth about $200 a fortnight less than it is today because of a change in the way it is indexed. Additionally, the recent deal with the Palmer United Party to delay the scheduled increase in the Superannuation Guarantee until 2025 will leave the average 25-year-old worker more than $100,000 worse off in retirement.

6 .org.au September 2014

Life under Abbott: party’s over, now for the hangover

7The fight against climate change has been set back by

20 years.The axing of the price on carbon in July

means Australia no longer has a credible policy to combat global warming. This is not just an environmental disaster, but it is also a setback for the evolution of the Australian economy to one that is less reliant on fossil fuels and able to compete in the emerging global clean energy market. Now, the government is deciding on whether to also drastically wind back the Renewable Energy Target, a move the clean energy industry warns would cost thousands of jobs and more than $10 billion in investment.

8Universal healthcare? That’s so 1983.

If Clive Palmer can be believed, the $7 GP co-payment announced in this year’s Budget has had a temporary reprieve, but that doesn’t mean it’s dead. Regardless of whether it gets up in its originally intended form this year – and Joe Hockey is adamant it still will – the intention

is now clear from the Coalition that it wants to introduce a US-style user-pays healthcare system. Joe Hockey can’t understand what all the fuss is about; as far as he’s concerned, the $7 fee is less than a couple of beers.

9If you lose your job, it’s your fault.

With one-in-five jobseekers aged under 20 unemployed, the Abbott Government’s solution is punishment and humiliation. After this year’s Budget, unemployed people under 30 will be completely on their own for the first six months of jobseeker, with no income support at all. After that, they will have to work for the dole, and if they still don’t have a job by then, the support is cut off again. Some unemployed may end up working for the Green Army, where they are not protected by Fair Work laws. On top of that is the requirement that jobseekers submit 40 applications a month.

10Poor people don’t drive cars.

The very wealthy were screaming blue murder after they were hit with a new ‘temporary Budget repair levy’ in this year’s Budget. But the rich have got off very lightly. By contrast, the measures that will affect low income earners are permanent and their impact will grow over time. They include freezing or reducing indexation of payment rates or eligibility thresholds for benefits like age and disability pensions, family payments, and unemployment allowances, as well as the $7 GP co-payment. Some low income families will see their disposable incomes reduced by over 5% this financial year; by contrast, very high income earners will only see a 0.3% decline.

It is true that some of these atrocities may be softened by the Senate, but that will only happen if people keep up the pressure on cross-bench Senators.

What other broken promises would you add to this list?

TONY Abbott was elected a year ago on a pledge to restore trust in our political system. His was to be a government of “no surprises and no excuses”.

One year into government, that promise is not just broken – it is shattered. Australians are seeing quite clearly the Coalition’s vision for a harsher, less equal Australia and there are no three word slogans left for Tony Abbott to hide behind any longer.

The assault on welfare, Medicare, education and the public sector represents the end of the fair go and the biggest attack on the social wage and living standards that this country has ever seen. Working people who ask for nothing more than dignity, respect and a fair go, are being forced to bear the brunt of the Budget, while big business avoids its load.

The Budget tells us what type of Australia Tony Abbott believes in and it is a vision Australians have well and truly rejected. Thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest and polling shows that if an election were held now, the Coalition would be thrown out of office.

But two years is a long time in politics and that is how long before Australians return to the ballot box to have the ultimate say on Tony Abbott’s vision of a harsh and unequal Australia. The challenge for all of us is to maintain and harness that outrage until the next election.

The only real defence is to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to protect the way of life that we value.

So after one year in office, Tony Abbott is on notice. We will stand united to fight his government’s attack on working Australians so that we can all enjoy a better life.

7.org.auSeptember 2014

Abbott’s first year

Life under Abbott: party’s over, now for the hangoverThis fight is only just beginning

by GED KEARNEYPresident of the ACTU

Read more about the Abbott anniversary online:workinglife.org.au

8 .org.au September 2014

My Working Life

Photo: Mark Phillips/ACTU

‘You can’t fight big companies by yourself’

“I’ve lived up there [northern Victoria] all my life. I worked at the Wodonga abattoirs for a number of

years, was involved with the union there, and I went to various jobs, casual work here and there where I could get it, and then started with a company called Rocla and spent I think six or seven years with them, making concrete pipes.

I spent two years with Murray Goulburn at Kiewa and then my partner applied for a warehouse position down at Edith Creek.

We went down and checked it out before we decided to move, and while we were there they offered me a job as well and we thought that was a good opportunity to try something different.

It’s a lot more laid back lifestyle, it’s a beautiful part of the world down there, quite nice. We’ve met a lot of nice people, made some pretty good friends down there.

We’re the best dairy country in Australia down there. There’s always rain, we’ve got plenty of water, plenty of cows.

At Edith Creek, we do everything from custard to milk, protein drinks. We would produce around a million litres a week. It can get up to more just depending on demand.

When we first moved there, it was

probably only about 90 people. They’ve put in a few new machines, new lines, spent a bit of money and now it’s prob-ably close to 120 people.

IT went pear shaped there when we first got there and we had a big struggle with management. We were told we’d be on the same wages, but when we got there, the wages were completely different. About $6 an hour difference.

We started a big fight down there and that’s got us to where we are today, trying to get Murray Goulburn Tasmania, Edith Creek, onto the Victorian sites’ agreement.

Our EBA runs out at the end of this

month [September]. We’re not fighting for pay parity at the moment because it wouldn’t be viable for the company to do that, but we want the same conditions because the conditions are a lot different, some of their conditions are a lot better than we’ve got in Tassie.

There’s only two claims we’re going for which is a pay rise, and to be part of the Victorian agreement. We’re seeking 9%. Victoria went for six. It’s just to bridge that gap towards pay parity.

We’re supported by all the Victorian sites as well, Victorian members. Last EBA, the Victorian sites were trying to get Tassie on [to the same agreement] to no avail and this time we’re trying again. But the company is refusing to talk about Edith Creek

They [management] will be pretty hard I reckon. They’ve already stated in the meetings with the Victorians they don’t want Edith Creek on the agreement at all. They’re not recognising Tassie is part of the Murray Goulburn family, they like to call it.

I reckon it will [come down to a blue]. There’s a fair chance that the Victorian sites will probably want to strike to get Tassie onto the agreement.

I’ve been a union member ever since I left school and started work.

Continued page 10

Originally from northern Victoria, Chris Walsh works as a UHT milk processor at the Devondale Murray Goulburn plant at Edith Creek in north-western Tasmania. Alongside his National Union of Workers colleagues, he is about to embark on an enterprise bargaining campaign to bring Tasmanian employees onto the same agreement as Victorian workers.

“

9.org.auSeptember 2014

LIGHTS. Camera. Action. Drama. Theatrics. Spotlight.

Finally, on 10 September, Julia Gillard arrived at the 55 Market Street, Sydney hearing rooms of the Royal Commission into Trade Unions (known in the twittersphere as #turc and elsewhere as TURC). It was, for many, the make or break moment for retired High Court Judge Dyson Heydon’s Royal Commission.

The stage for the former PM was the Royal Commission witness box. Ms Gillard spent more than an extraordinary four hours there, without raising a sweat under the glare.

Afterwards the theatre critics panned the show. They expected more. But there was no Gotcha moment.

The upset conspiracy theorists, who put so much energy into the creation of TURC, reckon either (1) counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar SC deliberately pulled his punches; or (2) bikie elements got to key witnesses to change their testimony; or, (3) rather hopefully, they still wait for more dirt to surface from a Victoria Police effort.

However colourful some of the smears being aired, you miss the point if you are only interested in the theatrics going on in the box.

The real stuff informing the final TURC report are the four under-publicised, under-reported issues papers.

This is the real action. It is happening well away from the theatrics of the hearing room. You can get a sense of what TURC is all about by closely looking at these four issues papers.

The issues papers look at :• PROTECTING union whistleblowers;• THE duties of union officials;• THE funding of trade union elections;• RELEVANT entities.

The first three issues papers were released at the start of June. Then the

TURC put out a fourth issues paper near the end of July to look at the operation of a variety of union-associated funds – not just election ‘slush funds’ but also worker entitlement funds for training, long service leave and retrenchment.

The Commission gave 11 July as the deadline close date for submissions for the first three – and the fourth by 20 August.

But – without notice or fanfare – the TURC website, very quietly, added words under the issues paper section telling people that though submissions have formally closed, late submissions are still being accepted!!!

IT is now more than two months since the original deadline. The gossip around TURC is that the small change on their website was very important to note – it was allegedly caused by the fact not many people have responded.

It is known that the ACTU and its affiliates have decided not to participate, not to put in any submissions.

TURC also request submissions from interested individuals and organisations. They are keen to get information from union people – especially ex-union people with a gripe or an axe to grind.

“Submissions from employees, officers,

or members of an organisation, who have been involved in trade union activities as a whistleblower, or as a witness to whistleblowing, are particularly welcome,” the TURC website pleads.

I have asked TURC now a number of times for information about the issues papers process – but been stonewalled. The three or four times I’ve asked over the last two months I’ve basically been told (ever so politely) to bugger off .

Among the questions I wanted answers for were:• HOW many submissions were received for the original three papers before 11 July?• THE names of groups and individuals who put in submissions to the issues papers before 11 July?• HOW many submissions were received after 11 July? And from whom?• WILL all the submissions informing the issues papers be available on their website for public perusal?• WILL they inform the Australian public how many submissions they received which will not be made public – and give a reason for the secrecy?

A key issue for TURC is union transparency and accountability.

Continued next page

Royal commission’s theatrics tell only half the real story

Opinion

Dramatic: A hearing of the Heydon royal commission earlier this year. Photo: AAP Image/oculi.com.au/Jeremy Piper

by ANDREW CASEYAsia-Pacific Editorfor LabourStart

‘You can’t fight big companies by yourself’Continued from page 8

“It’s just something my grand-father sort of pushed on me - you should be in a union, they look

after you.He worked a lot of different jobs. He

used to work on the old CRB [Country Roads Board] and PMG [Postmaster General], which is now Telstra. He’s always been a Labor voter and a union supporter and it’s something I grew up with seeing him do all of that sort of stuff. He was always helping other people when they were in trouble.

He always said you should be a part

of a union because they look after you and you can’t fight big companies by yourself, you need people to help you and unions are the best way to do it.

There was no sort of union involvement at all at Edith Creek when we arrived, I think they had three union members. Kiewa was pretty much 100%.

When we first got there, the company refused to recognise us, but now we probably have 65-70% membership. I think the biggest problem, because they were so far behind, they didn’t understand what the union was about and I think management put it in their heads that we were bullies and we were only there

to cause trouble but when you sit down and talk to people, that’s not what we’re there for. We’re not there to cause trouble, we’re there to look after the workers.

We just show them the benefits of what you can do if everybody sticks together. If we all stand up as one the company realises it can’t bully us and treat us unfairly.

A lot of the people we’ve had join up were in a predicament where management was picking on them a little bit, but as soon as they find out they’re union members, management backs off.

Interview by Mark Phillips

Royal Commission theatrics tell us only half the storyContinued from page 5

So I would have thought TURC would set a high standard in their own transparency and accountability.

But so far my questions – first raised nearly two months ago – have not been answered.

At least one employer group seems to have gone rogue on the TURC.

The Australian Industry Group gave (leaked) to The Australian newspaper their own submission to the TURC issues papers. The page one treatment of this ‘exclusive’ is obviously meant to publicly pressure Commissioner Dyson Heydon.

The AiG is attacking important workplace entitlements won by unions – suggesting that normal commercial arrangements between a union and fund entitlements providers are corrupt.

Employer associations (read boss unions) who also receive monies out of these commercial arrangements will suffer collateral damage as a result of the AiG push. But unlike the worker unions, at the moment, the employer association profits from these same commercial agreements are not in the spotlight, are not being queried.

It will be interesting to watch if any other individuals, employers or associations now follow the AiG.

Will they decide they too need to pressure TURC by getting their own submissions into the media domain?

Certainly there is an alternative view. Some employers may have informally joined the unions in not participating in the

TURC process. The evident politicisation of Royal Commissions – much discussed in the mainstream media – may worry more level-headed employers and groups.

They’re keenly aware that the short-termism behind the election cycle priorities of politicians can actually damage their businesses. They prefer the long game.

In our democracy the ALP, as the political wing of the industrial movement, will, inevitably, be back on the government benches some time down the track. Why antagonise the ALP by participating in a debatable, politicised TURC?

THE credibility of TURC’s final report will be undermined if they are not prepared to be more open.

How many groups or individuals have provided information and data which will inform Justice Heydon’s recommendations on the issues raised in the four papers?

Is it just a handful? Are they core mainstream groups? Or fringe players on the political extremes of our society?

The final TURC recommendations, to come down at the end of December, will – if acted upon – have a major impact on Australian democracy.

It is now more than two months since the original closing date for the issues papers. To count up the number of submissions made, and list exactly who made the submissions is not a hard job.

On its website TURC itself clearly states that ‘‘submissions will be made public unless the person making the submission requests that it not be made public and the Royal Commission considers it should not be made public.

‘‘That will usually only occur for reasons associated with fairness or where there is a possibility of harm being suffered by the person who made the submission.”

Decisions about why some papers will not be made available for public scrutiny – and the reason for the secrecy could have been made in the last two months.

The community has a right to know – and a right to be given a reasoned argument for non-publication of any submissions.

So yes, Julia Gillard did a star turn at TURC – and most commentators have praised her style – but don’t be taken in by the glare and glitter. What is occurring on stage is not the most important thing.

It is the mechanics behind the curtain, the unseen part of the production process putting on any show, which will really make or break TURC.

Andrew Casey is covering the Royal Commission into Trade Unions as an independent freelance journalist

.org.au September 201410“

So yes, Julia Gillard did a star turn at TURC – and most commentators have praised

her style – but don’t be taken in by the glare and glitter.

What is happening on stage is not the most important thing.

“

“

Ask Us

11.org.auSeptember 2014

JUAN asks: I’m on a working holiday and have a visa that I allows me to work [in Australia]. If I suffer from an unfair situation (for example, I received $10/hour and employer gave me only cash which doesn’t include tax, there is no payslip), and if I’m not a member of your union, can I get your union’s help? And another question is can I sue them after I quit the job? Also, if I don’t have a job, can I get the union to help?

Many unions have what’s known as a new member policy. This means that the assistance they can give to new members with problems already existing when they join will depend on what’s set down in their rules.

The exact nature of the policy varies from union to union. Some take it on a case by case basis, some will give only general phone advice, some will assist if it involves an organising lead,

and some unions again can’t give any assistance at all to new members. It’s because unions are member-funded organisations.

A good comparison would be with an insurance company – you wouldn’t be able to take out an insurance policy on Monday and claim for damage done by the bath overflowing the week before.

But don’t despair – there is action you can take. Every worker should receive with their wages a payslip which includes details of how much you were paid before and after tax, any penalty rates, any leave accrued or taken etc. Your boss is breaking the law by not supplying you with one as well as not taking tax out. In addition, it sounds as if you’re being underpaid.

Our team can advise you on how much you should be paid, and what to do if you’re owed money. Don’t worry if you’ve already quit, you can still make an underpayment of wages claim.

GOT A PROBLEM AT WORK?

You’ve come to the right place. Share your workplace issues with our other readers and get free advice from the Australian Unions helpline if you have a problem with your pay, entitlements, health and safety or anything else at work.

Phone 1300 4 UNION (1300 486 466).

I have been reprimanded for using my mobile phone at work

Do I need to be a union member before I can ask for assistance?

ISABELLE asks: My manager issued me a written warning due to mobile use at work. I don’t recall using my phone unless it was to check the time which it was in my bag (not on me and kept where our bags are kept). I did not make any calls or txt and it definitely wouldn’t have been while performing a task. The boss that is higher up than him told him (my manager) I used my phone and so my manager has now given me a written warning. I have not and do not intent to sign. What can I do? I have been loyal to them for a long time and have never been in trouble for anything! I really don’t want this to jeopardise any work opportunities or promotions not to mention I feel really upset about being accused of this.

Many workplaces now have clear mobile phone policies. These can be varied; for example: all phones must be turned off during a shift, or it’s okay to have your phone on your desk but they must be on silent, right through to being able to take and make calls at will.

Factors which would be considered when making the policy might be: is the phone needed for work? Does the phone signal interfere with technical equipment? Is noise an issue (for example, if you worked in a call centre)?

The important thing is that the policy is clear, fair and everyone knows what it is. That sounds like stating the obvious but people come and go and any in-house policies or procedures need to be included in any staff induction.

So, let’s talk about your warning.You need to respond to it in writing. Not

responding doesn’t stop the warning from standing. Not only that, but it’s your chance to put your side of the story.

Keep it concise and business like – even though it might be tempting, try not to get into dragging other people into it (for example, “So-and-so uses his phone all the time and he’s never been reprimanded”). Stick to the particular incident the warning is in regards to.

Perhaps you can mention that you genuinely can’t recall the incident but if you did use the phone, it was a mistake. Maybe you can ask for clarification of the phone policy. Try to keep it respectful and polite.

Keep a copy of it for your records as well as a copy of the original warning letter. Are you a member of a union? If so, and there’s a workplace delegate, have a chat to them.

Call us and one of our organisers can talk to you about this in more detail along with anything else that’s worrying you at work.

by RIGHTS WATCH

Mobile phone policies need to be consistent and fair for all employees.