News & Events CFMEU Protests

[Scotland]

It depends on the industry. In industries like construction, where the interests of workers are often very much at odds with the interests of employers because of stuff like safety, a strong union is absolutely relevant.

Unions aren't perfect but they are a necessary part of what is essentially a fundamentally adversarial IR system. It's a system that has worked extremely well in shaping the IR landscape in many, many countries and we would be foolish to think it is no longer relevant.

How are the interests of construction workers 'very much at odds' with those of employers?

 

[Caesar]

How are the interests of construction workers 'very much at odds' with those of employers?

Most obviously on matters of safety and conditions.

It is fine and dandy to say that in theory a safe worksite is of much benefit to employers as employees, but anyone who has spent any amount of time on worksites will testify to the reality of the situation as per Chism's post above. Construction (and similar industries) are conducted in high pressure environments with tight contractual timeframes and big money at stake. When push comes to shove, people are willing to cut corners.

In a tender-based, competitive industry where contracts are restrictive and have severe penalty clauses built in for overruns, it's natural that companies will be seeking to obtain every competitive advantage they can. The easiest way to do that in such a labour-intensive environment is to extract more from your human resources at a lower or similar cost. In a lot of cases it is the unions, not the regulator who stands in their way.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

How are the interests of construction workers 'very much at odds' with those of employers?

I work at a non-unionised organisation, and safety is our highest priority. We have Worksafe WA and the OSH Act to regulate and monitor our responsbilities and performance, and our workers feel we dont need unions to do this.

We have unions visit here regularly sitting in our lunch rooms doing 'safety inspections' trying to get employees on board, but no one has the time of day for them.

Safety just seems to be used as leverage for unions to get presense onsite = dragging in more members = fat pockets for union officials. Whats the difference between them and corperate fat cats?

 

[Scotland]

The only reason times have changed is because of the efforts of the BLF, and latterly, the CFMEU. Attitudes however, on both sides, have hardly altered at all. Employers would never have brought about the changes to wages, conditions and safety of their own accord. They had to be, an still are, dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dickensian age. Occasionally, the employers attempt to turn back the clock to 30 years ago. It is just such attempt by Grollo that is currently being resisted.

The only reason? Attitudes on both sides have hardly changed at all?

I suppose the unions are reponsible for the thousands of mutually beneficial individual contracts that exist in Australia, too.

The entirety of our industrial relations system is adversarial. Unless it is proven that a dispute exists, no arbitration is legally possible. Whether either side abides by such arbitration is another matter. I have no problem with people not wanting to join a union, as long as they are prepared to also forgo any benefits which might accrue to paid up members, as a result of their union's efforts.

Seems fair, provided the union and its members are happy to accept that (a) employers hiring their members are going to hire non-members and (b) these non-members may receive equal, better or worse conditions.

 

[skilts]

Think there is a common stereotype attached with unions. Belligerant, bogan, aggressive, alcoholism and beer guts. When you have union leaders on tv looking disgraceful and burping out abuse that doesnt help the public image.

Its hard for the public to sympathise with them largely because of this I think.

If their arguments and grievances were presented more concisely and professionally as opposed to yelling, screaming, waving flags, chanting and having bbq's then surely this would have a greater effect in this day and age?

This is risible. The reason Howard introduced his skewed industrial relations system was because the employers' representatives were being buggered up the bum (tautology I know) every time they made a desultory appearance before an industrial tribunal. Hawke, Whitlam and Clyde Cameron established a school to teach union advocates, at Albury, in the 1970s. The graduates of their school ran rings around their counterparts from the employers, for over twenty years, reducing their opponents to an ineffectual laughing stock. During this period, the employers enjoyed not one significant victory in front of the judiciary.

My authority for asserting this is John Winston Howard. I asked him, and he agreed, that this was the reason he wanted to introduce the legislation. This occured during the 1994 federal election campaign, in an answer to a question I asked, after a speech he delivered at Billy Bell's Hotel, in South Melbourne. In the speech (never seen a better one), Howard prefigured, to the word, legislation he eventually made law under his own, rather than Hewson's, government. Instead of educating the dummies representing the employers, he chose to nobble the unions. I have to admit that to have adopted the option of educating employers would have been to try to push shit well and truly uphill.

 

[Scotland]

On matters of safety and conditions, priorities are often in conflict.

It is fine to say that in theory a safe worksite is of much benefit to employers as employees, but anyone who has spent any amount of time on worksites can testify to the reality of the situation as per Chism post above. Construction (and similar industries) are conducted in high pressure environments with tight contractual timeframes and big money at stake. When push comes to shove, people are willing to cut corners.

The driver for safety in the 21st century is HSEC legislation and fear of litigation, not union presence.

The unions have to a degree attached themselves to workplace safety because HSEC is the last realm for those looking for an excuse not to work.

 

[Caesar]

The driver for safety in the 21st century is HSEC legislation and fear of litigation, not union presence.

Again, that is not the reality on worksites.

 

[Chism]

Most obviously on matters of safety and conditions.

It is fine and dandy to say that in theory a safe worksite is of much benefit to employers as employees, but anyone who has spent any amount of time on worksites will testify to the reality of the situation as per Chism's post above. Construction (and similar industries) are conducted in high pressure environments with tight contractual timeframes and big money at stake. When push comes to shove, people are willing to cut corners.

In a tender-based, competitive industry where contracts are restrictive and have severe penalty clauses built in for overruns, it's natural that companies will be seeking to obtain every competitive advantage they can. The easiest way to do that in such a labour-intensive environment is to extract more from your human resources at a lower or similar cost. In a lot of cases it is the unions, not the regulator who stands in their way.

Spot on Caesar.

It is very hard to explain what it is like until you have worked in the industry and seen exactly what the unions role is and how it has diminished a fair bit when the ABCC was brought in costing millions to the tax payer. The only thing the papers/ Neil Mitchell etc report are the negatives to paint unions in a bad light and the good stuff the union does on site regarding safety is a non issue and when fat cats want to take away our rights as workers and make us work unsafely they upset people and make no mistake about we will fight for our rights strongly.

I would love to know how peoples thoughts on the issues may change when one of these cheap labour guys that Grollo wants to bring in that is not properly trained rigs up a load for a crane that has to go up 25 stories and it comes down on a busy city sidewalk full of people in the morning rush. Don't expect an apology from Grollo and he will just blame the worker wiping his hands with it and pricks like Grollo have been putting profits ahead of safety for years but this has been the last straw now hence the unions stand.

 

[skilts]

Isn't this really about Grollo wanting to hire cheap labour from interstate?

What you say may have some truth to it, but the underlying reason is that Daniel wants it known that his dick is bigger than his dad's. Let's not forget the Italian blood. Oops, is that racist? Probably not, seeing he and his father were born in Australia. Daniel should leave their security compound in Station St Fairield more often. He'd find out the reality that he's a pathetic pencil dick, with delusions of adequacy. His grandfather would vomit at the sight of him. Now, there was a man.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

Again, that is not the reality on worksites.

I disagree. Injuries at work have a huge impact on company insurance premiums from a workers comp perspective. Common law claims against employers can also be very damaging to an employers reputation. Lost time injuries can be the difference between winning or losing a tender or business from clients, and the financial consequences can also be massive. There are many motivating factors for an employer to make their work environment safe.

 

[Chism]

I strongly disagree. Injuries at work have a huge impact on company insurance premiums from a workers comp perspective. Common law claims against employers can also be very damaging to an employers reputation. Lost time injuries can be the difference between winning or losing a tender or business from clients, and the financial consequences can also be massive. There are many motivating factors for an employer to make their work environment safe.

Until they just declare themselves bankrupt and then the bosses open up new construction companies in different names.

It has been happening for years.

 

[Caesar]

I disagree. Injuries at work have a huge impact on company insurance premiums from a workers comp perspective. Common law claims against employers can also be very damaging to an employers reputation. Lost time injuries can be the difference between winning or losing a tender or business from clients, and the financial consequences can also be massive. There are many motivating factors for an employer to make their work environment safe.

Do you work in construction? It is a very different beast to most industries. All those things pale in comparison with the overwhelming need to cost low and hit project completion milestones, in order to win huge contracts and avoid substantial contractual penalties that make or break profitability.

It is a hard business involving big money and huge risk/reward ratios. I have a cousin who is a project manager with a major construction company and some of the stories he tells are hair-raising. Frankly, you could not pay me enough to be involved in it.

 

[skilts]

Until they just declare themselves bankrupt and then the bosses open up new construction companies in different names.

It has been happening for years.

Yeh, and as a result, people like subbies can't to put food on their tables. The cycle continues and the same directors go down the tubes again and again. They're a blight on the industry, and not just for the employees. These arseholes win tenders by underquoting reputable companies, who know the works can't be done reliably for the prices quoted. The problem is with those who award such contracts, who only see the bottom line. The shonky operators inevitably go under, their jobs unfinished, and then it costs three times the original amount to get them completed. Unions aren't the only ones who cause cost overruns on projects. Funny that nobody has mentioned in regard to union wages the uncertainty of continuity of work, which is highly relevant to actual annual salaries.

 

[Miqar_Baqfhied]

Do you work in construction? It is a very different beast to most industries. All those things pale in comparison with the overwhelming need to cost low and hit project completion milestones, in order to win huge contracts and avoid substantial contractual penalties that make or break profitability.

It is a hard business involving big money and huge risk/reward ratios. I have a cousin who is a project manager with a major construction company and some of the stories he tells are hair-raising. Frankly, you could not pay me enough to be involved in it.

No I work in mining/technical services. Sounds like a much different environment.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Times have changed.

Human nature hasn't.

 

[Chism]

Yeh, and as a result, people like subbies can't put food on their tables. The cycle continues and the same directors go down the tubes again and again. They're a blight on the industry, and not just for the employees. These arseholes win tenders by underquoting reputable companies, who know the works can't be done reliably for the prices quoted. The problem is with those who award such contracts, who only see the bottom line. The shonky operators inevitably go under, their jobs unfinished, and then it costs three times the original amount to get them completed. Unions aren't the only ones who cause cost overruns on projects. Funny that nobody has mentioned in regard to union wages the uncertainty of continuity of work, which is highly relevant to actual annual salaries.

Exactly.

When St Hilliers recently went broke and left a heap of jobs arse up the receivers locked gates at 8am and subbies could not even get their own tools from the job and all the equipment was also locked in including a heap of forklifts , boom lifts and scissors etc etc. The subbies that own these have to then wait for corporate paper work chain to start to get what they own back costing them thousands not to mention the money they are owed for works completed.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Kids don’t have a little brother working in the coal mine, they don’t have a little sister coughing her lungs out in the looms of the big mill towns of the Northeast. Why? Because we organized; we broke the back of the sweatshops in this country; we have child labor laws. Those were not the benevolent gifts from enlightened management. They were fought for, they were bled for, they were died for by working people, by people like us. Kids ought to know that. That’s why I sing these songs. That’s why I tell these stores, dammit. No root, no fruit! - Utah Phillips

 

[JuddsABlue]

I remember working for a logistics company for about 3 years. It wasnt the safest worksite, but thats because a few people would drive forklifts around blind corners at full speed, and if someone was in the way and happened to die, it was their fault for putting themselves there.

These same people were the ones always bringing up the minor safety issues such as no dividers between the smokers area that was 50ft away from any forklift activity. "You better put some dividers there in case I lose control of my forklift while driving dangerously!"

Anyway, there was no union there. Minimum wage was around $19 an hour, with some blokes on $27 etc. So one day some new Union shows up preaching to the masses about how they can change everything and used the word safety and protection in every sentance.

So what was the first and most important agenda when the employees became members? Surely it was safety you'd think. I ended up leaving, but I'm sure after their finished their fight for 4 15m smokos a day then safety would've been next on the list

Lost my faith in unions and and the attitudes of employees after that

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Times have changed. Attitudes developed thirty years ago aren't relevant today because conditions aren't the same as they were 30 years ago. There is an element in the union movement that carries on like the self proclaimed local legend that kicked the winning goal to win that game back in 1985 and expects lifetime free drinks because of it - despite acting like a ********.

The 40 hour week, holiday pay, sick pay - we get that we have the unions to thank for these things, but past good deeds don't equate to an eternal position of relevance and authority. Thirty years ago Aboriginal people had only recently been given the vote and capital punishment was still legal. Times change, societies progress. IR should not be separate from this.

The right to join a union should be no more or less protected than the right not to. Us and them mentalities and focusing on fighting for control rather than seeking to protect members invariably only leads do declined union membership and negative outcomes for workers...

Is this something you've written in the mid 90s and decided to share with us now?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

OH&S / HSEC whatever we want to call it these days can be a silly thing at times and very frustrating.

For me to drive a work vehicle offsite (a mine) on a bitumen road I had to complete a defensive driving course, no issue with that. However the entire course including emergency braking procedures etc was all done on dirt roads.

I worked over here in the 80s before OH&S had come into being and it was pretty horrendous when I think back, I personally witnessed 6 work mates die.

Now that I'm over here again it's infinitely better but I think in cases it has gone to far, and still is. It used to be production first and then safety, now it is the other way, or so they tell us. It's funny how things deemed unsafe are suddenly safe when the division head is paying a visit. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk in all cases.

 

[Scotland]

Is this something you've written in the mid 90s and decided to share with us now?

The Aboriginal referendum was in 1967, capital punishment was abolished in 1985. Do the exact dates make a difference? 30 years, 20 years, 50 years - union attitudes don't seem to have changed...

 

[MaddAdam]

CFMEU really didn't help their cause by John Setka going and getting photographed having a glass of wine with Mick ****ing Gatto on the first day of the dispute.

 

[Chism]

CFMEU really didn't help their cause by John Setka going and getting photographed having a glass of wine with Mick ******* Gatto on the first day of the dispute.

Setka who is a rigger by trade so to speak and Gatto have been mates for years as Gatto has a well respected crane company. Gee how dare they catch up with each other over a lunch or what have you.

Talk about clutching at straws and you will be writing for the Herald Sun in no time.

 

[MaddAdam]

Setka who is a rigger by trade so to speak and Gatto have been mates for years as Gatto has a well respected crane company. Gee how dare they catch up with each other over a lunch or what have you.

Talk about clutching at straws and you will be writing for the Herald Sun in no time.

I'm actually quite supportive of the CFMEU on this one and have a very close family connection with an associated union.

Gatto though is a gangster and a thug and everyone knows it.

Similarly, Setka was an idiot for allowing the PERCEPTION that he is mates with gatto to get out on the first day of the dispute (media wise).

If they want to catch up, which they are perfectly entitled to, they should have done it in privacy.

Setka was making a statement and he knew it.

 

[Chism]

Perceptions are like arseholes and every has one!