The Editor, John Surname, Ant Rogenous, Jermey Sear, Chuck A. Spear, Keri and Craig discuss:

* IR laws and cheap populism
* Roberta Williams’ tits
* Political tapology
* Funniest/weirdest things on the intertubes this week

** Because everyone in the world is currently downloading other podcasts that aren’t this one, use only the “Play in popup” link or the “Download” link. **

 

 GrodsThink 21 (17 June 08) [34:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Subscribe:   

I am very disappointed at the news that the “Union thug” pro-WorkChoices commercials have been pulled because two of the thugs were convicted criminals. The Liberals (sorry, the BCA) must be very hard up for actors, because it seems like everyone who appears in these commericals is a criminal, or becomes one.

I found the idea of union thugs marching into dressmaking shops and turning off the power quite a hilarious idea, far exceeding the laughs in my own satire. If it wasn’t funny enough, they then added that “doomsday” music, darkened the colours, and claimed that Unions will tell people how to run their business if the reforms are scrapped.

Yeah, right.

That ad had more laughs than a single episode of The Wedge. The BCA should realise that if you’re going to do a scare campaign, you should do it properly. It shouldn’t leave it’s audience in stitches. I propose that for their next ad they get the Union thugs to chase the small business owners around Benny Hill style.

You can still download the ad from the BCA site - just click this link and save as.

When I started teaching this year I thought long and hard about whether I should join the teachers’ union, the AEU. In the end I handed over my direct debit details and signed up for a few reasons: Firstly, I believe that teachers (and subsequently, I) should be paid more money and I think that the AEU does and will work hard to ensure that pay rates continue to rise; secondly, I want the legal backing that the union will give me if I’m ever in a workplace situation that requires it; and thirdly, the union is fighting against the scourge of contract employment in the teaching profession.

So I guess you could call me a union man in that I belong to one and I largely support the work that they do. (Largely support because there are times when the union muscles into debates, such as curriculum development, when I don’t support them. Single-issue organisations trying to hijack nuanced debates that require reasoned and sensible discussions between experts and stakeholders pisses me off.) I also guess that you could call me a Labor man in that I have previously, and plan to continue, voting for or preferencing the ALP.

However, something in Jason Koutsoukis’ Age column really struck me this morning:

As one prominent union leader told me the other day, for an opposition to lose an election after the government has been in power for more than 10 years it has to be really bad.

“And we’re just not that bad. In fact, I think we’re starting to look good.”

Bit Freudian that: union leader letting slip that he sees no difference between the ALP and the union movement. Playing right into John Howard’s hands, that sort of comment.

And rankles me — a Labor voter and union member — who wants the two to maintain a degree of seperation.

“In short, we simply believe in individual freedom”
– Liberal party website

This guiding belief can be clearly seen in much of the federal government’s legislation over the years, such as penalties for not buying private health insurance and the ultimate clanger: WorkChoices.

The Editor: I’m nearly 30 and I’d like to purchase private health insurance.
The Liberal party: Great! We’ll support you in your decision.

The Editor: I’m nearly 30 and for the time being I’d like to remain within the public health system and pay a Medicare levy.
The Liberal party: No worries. We’ll just wait patiently and then slaughter you when you do decide to take out health insurance.

The Editor: I’d like to sign an AWA please.
Liberal party supported employer: Great! We’ll support you in your decision.

The Editor: I’d like to sign a union-negotiated collective agreement.
Liberal party supported employer: No.

As the weeks roll on I see more and more parallels between the Liberal philosophy of individual choice and the classroom management strategies employed in a primary school. In my first month of teaching I’ve tried hard to emulate the minister for industrial relations and avuncularity, Joe Hockey, by providing my students with Liberal style choice. I’ve found myself saying things like:

“I think you need to make a wiser choice about where you sit, student.”

“It’s time you thought about the choices you make in this classroom with regards to distracting other people, student.”

“You can choose to be an active member of this class and learn or choose to sit outside staring at the wall for the rest of the year, student”

It’s blindingly obvious that I’m not offering any real choice to the students but am trying to soften the command by giving the illusion of choice. Joe Hockey demonstrated this very philosophy in his “debate” with Julie Gillard last week:

JULIA GILLARD: I am happy to see workers sitting around and working out how they want to deal with their industrial arrangements.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Without a union, if they don’t want one?

JULIA GILLARD: If that is what they choose. And, to take an example, let’s look at the Queensland netballers, that’s been a big issue today. 20 women on the team, they play as a team, they want to negotiate their employment conditions as a team, and they can’t under the Howard Government’s legislation. Now, I don’t care whether they want the union involved or whether the 20 of them want to sit around and do it themselves, that’s entirely a matter for them, but if the 20 of them want to do it together, then they should be able to do it together, and they can’t achieve that under Mr Howard’s laws.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Joe Hockey?

JOE HOCKEY: You need to have flexibility in the workplace, Kerry. Flexibility can include individual contracts. Again, under the Labor Party, individual contracts were essentially based on the award system, they were a bolt on to the award. What we are saying is, there has to be freedom. If individuals want to negotiate individual contracts, that is great.

KERRY O’BRIEN: What about if the individual doesn’t want to but is intimidated into?

JOE HOCKEY: What choice does an individual get if they are thrown a collective agreement?

KERRY O’BRIEN: Well, which is worse?

JOE HOCKEY: I would say it’s worse to have a collective agreement thrown at you with no choice, or an award thrown at you which is negotiated by lawyers down at the Industrial Relations Commission in Melbourne, I think that is far worse than having an individual contract that you can tailor in negotiations with the employer…

JULIA GILLARD: Look, Joe has just tied himself up in a logical knot and I don’t think he’s ever going to get out of it. He is saying people should have choice, but let’s take the actual example of the Firebirds, the 20 netballers. They want a choice. The choice they want is they want to work together and have their own collective agreement. Under Mr Howard’s laws, what is getting thrown at them isn’t a collective agreement or an award. What is getting thrown at them is individual agreements they don’t want. So the Howard Government is actually saying, “You don’t really get a choice. If you choose a collective agreement, too bad.

But at least my teaching style will directly contribute to a stronger economy, less terrorism and more values.

I’m not a member of a union. Hell, I don’t even have a job. But this morning I got up early, caught a train, walked along the Yarra with a takeaway coffee (so I could be easily identified as a member of the “latte left”), and took a seat at the MCG.

There is a widely-held belief in the community, summed up by MrLefty, that today’s anti-WorkChoices rallies around the country would achieve nothing. Being little more than expensive and high-profile union love-ins, the rally and march would change nobody’s opinion or vote and simply give John Howard more ammunition in the spin-laden promotion of his ideologically-driven industrial relations legislation. If this was true then I would agree that there was, as Lefty suggests, little point in attending the rally.

I held this view myself until a couple of weeks ago when I heard Greg Combet address a group of unionists. He told these blokey, Eureaka flag-toting building workers, in a stern and accusing tone, that ACTU research indicates a large proportion of union members around the country voted Liberal at the last election having been sucked in by John Howard’s bullshit interest rates scare campaign. Combet rightly made entire rows of the audience squirm by pointing out that those votes in all likelihood handed the balance of power, if not the election, to the Howard Government, and subsequently made possible the WorkChoices legislation. Hearing this I realised that the primary purpose of the ACTU Your Rights At Work campaign was not to convince the general public about the need to repeal WorkChoices by voting against the Liberals, but the membership of the country’s unions.

So this morning I toddled along to the MCG rally and afterwards marched to Federation Square. Sure, the overblown rhetoric of the union and Labor is just as reductionist and misleading as the Howard Government’s; sure, the lure of Jimmy Barnes was probably responsible for quite a few people showing up; sure, there were obscene quantities of meat pies and hot chips being consumed at 8 o’clock in the morning. But the fact remains that the WorkChoices legislation is intrinsically bad and the only way we’ll get rid of it is by voting against John Howard and the Liberal Party. If it takes a “rock concert” (as Howard called it) rally to change enough votes to make this happen then I’ll support it any way I can.

The High Court decision yesterday was a 5:2 majority call that the Federal government was well within its Constitutional corporations head of power in instituting its sweeping workplace relations laws.

The States have lost the battle and in doing so, they have lost the war, too. This court decision means that the Commonwealth ministers will be lining up for advice from the Australian Attorney General’s Department and the Australian Government Solicitor as to how far they can push their own portfolios via the corporations power.

When it happened in the Tasmanian Dams case under the Hawke government, I didn’t care - I was on their side. Damn straight the Tasmanian government should not be permitted to dam the Franklin, was my view. But now the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, and I am all for federalism. What else have we got to protect us from the kind of sabotage of workplace relations and now potentially also of the health and education portfolios that this Howard government commits with such gleeful, smug abandon?

Read more about views of the High Court’s conservative ascendancy leading to the judgment here

Read about the case and find links to the judgment here