24/06/1998. The Courier-Mail has published a series of articles on the need for industrial reform and critical of the Maritime Union of Australia. Unionist Col Harrington replies.
INCREASINGLY, the Howard Government shows signs of being driven by ideological zeal rather than a commitment to commonsense policy development, particularly in industrial relations. While the bitter struggle with the Maritime Union grabbed the headlines, Arco and Rio Tinto have, at the Government’s urging, waged a similar battle against mining industry unions. Now building and construction completes the trifecta of major union influence which, in the minds of the Howard Government, has to be broken at all costs. Which is all very well, say industry figures, if the Government is willing to wear the cost. It is not.
That’s probably why, in this instance, Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith is enjoying only lukewarm support from employer groups. Reith has embarked on a crusade to “reform” the industry in an imperious manner. Industry and union leaders criticise Reith’s approach. The Government has produced a set of guidelines that seeks to take major responsibility for industrial relations away from contractors while still leaving them the risk involved. Queensland Master Builders Association executive director Greg Quinn has described the Government’s approach as “naïve”. While expressing philosophical support for change and being generally supportive of Reith’s proposed code of practice, Quinn says he has “major difficulties with the Government’s guidelines” in particular “the attempt to change `overnight’ an industrial relations culture built up over decades”.
For their part, the unions are mystified by the Government’s approach. Builders Labourers Federation Queensland secretary Greg Simcoe finds it hard to see what the Government hopes to gain from this hairy-chested venture. Describing the industry as “self reforming” Simcoe reminds Reith that positive change can be achieved only when everyone involved has something to gain. “Reith wants world’s best practice but, when we achieve it, he doesn’t want us to be paid for it” he says. While some common ground exists between employer groups and unions, major divisions are apparent between these parties and the Government. There is no clearer divide than in the proposal to end closed shops as a prerequisite for tendering on Federal Government projects. Even where agreements have been struck between employers and unions, Reith has decided to meddle regardless.
Under the guise of “maximising the value of the taxpayer dollar’”, the Government proposes to ban “compulsory unionism” agreements between unions and employers as well as over-award payments. Unions say there is only one reason for conservatives to breach the protection of the closed shop: to lower wages and conditions and to lessen union influence.
Union leaders attest that a union is often ineffectual unless everyone at a workplace is a member. They also argue that it is more than a little dishonest and lacking in responsibility for people to enjoy wages and conditions fought for by others without at least being willing to contribute a few dollars a week towards their upkeep. As far as the unions are concerned, all the cliches and the mantras, so often disparaged, still ring true – especially “United we bargain, divided we beg”. Unionists believe they are fatally undermined when non-union co-workers yield in the face of the employer’s resistance. Experience shows that if the employer has to deal with a united workforce represented by a union official who cannot be intimidated, singled out and sacked, then concessions can be wrought. It is almost customary that they in turn will chant their mantras “can’t afford it”, “got to remain competitive”, “we’ll all be rooned”. However, unions know that the employers will acquiesce to any reasonable demand. To back up their claims, they point out that union members in building and construction earn on average 35 percent more than non-union members. For employers, the closed shop represents a reasonable guarantee of industrial harmony. Workers who enjoy good wages and conditions and feel they are valued perform better than those who feel they are being undervalued and cheated. Industrial action is less when all parties keep to their agreements.
It is no coincidence that on larger sites where closed shops are an accepted reality and decent wages and conditions prevail, world’s best practice is the norm. The question for Australians to consider is whether we can afford to allow the Government to indulge itself in its pursuit of conservative dogma when the gains to be had are dubious at best.