workers' rights

The Senate Education and Employment References Committee has released a scathing report entitled A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders, which documents the abuses of Australia’s temporary visa system for
foreign workers.

By Leith van
Onselen

The Senate Education and Employment References Committee has
released a scathing report entitled A
National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders,
which documents the abuses of Australia’s temporary visa system for
foreign workers.

According to the report, there are over 1.8 million temporary visa
holders in Australia (see Table 2.5 below), with approximately 1.4
million of them having work rights. This means that temporary visa
holders comprise around 10% of Australia’s labour force.

Below is a summary of the Committee’s view of the 457 visa system
for so-called “skilled” foreign workers:

The committee received evidence that a key indicator of the
effectiveness of the 457 visa program in addressing genuine skills
shortages is the responsiveness of the demand for 457 visa workers to
changes in the general rate of unemployment, and to changes in the
supply of skilled labour in particular occupations.

Evidence to the committee indicated that the responsiveness of
the 457 visa program to the upturn in the unemployment rate lagged by
two to three years. Furthermore, the committee received evidence that
the 457 visa program was having a detrimental impact on the employment
opportunities for Australian graduates in specific occupations such as
engineering and nursing.

The committee acknowledges that it received conflicting evidence
regarding the balance between permanent and temporary migration. In
theory, the value of temporary migration is that it allows business to
meet short-term skills shortages. In this respect, there is an
advantage in having some element of temporary migration because
addressing skills shortages solely through the permanent migration
scheme could result in a skills surplus, particularly if a sector that
was booming experienced a sudden down-turn (the resources sector for
example). Addressing short-term skill shortages with the 457 visa
scheme should be a way of moderating these types of rapid
transformations in discrete segments of the skilled job market.

However, the committee is concerned that the broader temporary
visa program, and specifically the 457 visa program, is not
sufficiently responsive either to higher levels of unemployment, or to
labour market changes in specific skilled occupations…

Given the concerns raised in this inquiry, it is therefore
appropriate to review the policy settings of the 457 visa program and
labour agreements at this juncture to ensure they are set correctly…

The Committee recommends that the minimum income threshold for 457
visa holders be indexed to ordinary weekly earnings, so that it is not
eroded over time, along with the implementation of more rigorous,
independent, evidence-based, and transparent processes for determining
the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List (CSOL), which it sees as ad
hoc and ineffective:

Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that
the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) be indexed to
average fulltime weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) as at 1 July
2015 and that indexation occur each financial year.

Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that
the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration (MACSM) be
re-constituted as a genuinely tripartite, independent, and transparent
body with responsibility and commensurate funding to provide objective
evidence-based advice to government on matters pertaining to skills
shortages, training needs, workforce capacity and planning, and labour
migration (including Designated Area Migration Agreements and the full
range of temporary visa programs with associated work rights). The
committee further recommends that the reports produced by MACSM be made
publicly available.

The Committee also wants stringent labour market testing of all
457 visa nominations to ensure that employers employ locals first
wherever possible:

The committee notes that the vast majority of all occupations
available for sponsorship under the 457 visa program are exempt from
labour market testing…  although the extent to which it is occurring is
difficult to quantify, the committee is deeply disturbed by evidence of
workers losing their jobs only to be replaced by 457 visa workers. In
this regard, the committee is of the view that there should be a
prohibition against replacing local workers with 457 visa workers…

Given the current high levels of unemployment and
under-employment amongst Australian professionals, however, the
committee is of the view that the labour market testing should be
further strengthened. In particular, the current exemptions on labour
market testing for ANZSCO skill levels 1 and 2 should be removed, and
labour market testing should be required prior to all 457 visa
nominations.

Further, the committee is of the view that labour market testing
should apply to all positions for which a 457 visa holder is nominated
under labour agreements and Designated Area Migration Agreements.

Recommendation 7: The committee recommends that
the replacement of local workers by 457 visa workers be specifically
prohibited.

Recommendation 8: The committee recommends that
the current exemptions on labour market testing for ANZSCO skill levels
1 and 2 be removed.

Recommendation 9: The committee recommends
that the Migration Regulations be amended to specify that labour market
testing applies to all positions nominated by approved sponsors under
labour agreements and Designated Area Migration Agreements.

Importantly, the Committee also recommends that employers using
457 visas make explicit efforts to employ and train locals:

Recommendation 13: The committee recommends
that employer sponsors of a 457 visa worker (professional) be required
to also employ an Australian tertiary graduate in the same enterprise
on a one-for-one basis.

Recommendation 14: The committee recommends
that employer sponsors of a 457 visa worker (trade) be required to
demonstrate that apprentices represent 25 per cent of the sponsor’s
total trade workforce (with the threshold for this requirement being
the employment of four or more tradespersons).

Recommendation 15: The committee recommends
that the current training benchmarks be replaced with a training levy
paid per 457 visa holder employed in the business. The committee
recommends that the levy be set at up to $4000 per 457 visa worker and
that the levy be paid into existing government programs that
specifically support sectors experiencing labour shortages as well as
apprenticeships and training programs…

The most damning assessments from the Committee were regarding
Australia’s Working Holiday Maker (WHM) and student visa holders, who
were “consistently reported to suffer widespread exploitation in
the Australian workforce”.

The Committee also noted that undocumented foreign workers were
eroding labour standards for Australian employees:

The committee received evidence that undocumented work by
migrant labour has resulted not only in the severe exploitation of
highly vulnerable workers, but also impacted Australia’s labour
markets, including placing downward pressure on the wages and
conditions of Australian workers and undercutting the majority of
legitimate employers that abide by Australian workplace laws.

Looking at the WHM (417 and 462) visa program first, the Committee
noted the following:

A substantial body of evidence to this inquiry demonstrated
blatant and pervasive abuse of the WHM visa program by a network of
labour hire companies supplying 417 visa workers to businesses in the
horticulture sector and the meat processing industry.

It was clear from the evidence that these labour hire companies
have a particular business model. There are a number of labour hire
companies in Australia with close links to labour hire agencies in
certain south-east Asian countries… The scale of the abuse is
extraordinary, both in terms of the numbers of young temporary visa
workers involved, and also in terms of the exploitative conditions that
they endure…

On completion of their ‘training’, the 417 visa workers were
given a job where they were required to work regular 12 to 18 hour
shifts 6 days a week. They were frequently denied proper breaks and
often had to keep working or return to work early after suffering
workplace injuries. The pay rates were appalling. Most received around
a flat $11 or $12 an hour irrespective of whether this was the night
shift, the weekend, or overtime hours. These wage rates are illegal and
clearly breach award minimums…

Poor or non-existent record-keeping was endemic across the
labour hire companies mentioned in this inquiry. This has serious
implications for ensuring compliance with legal minimum conditions of
employment. The 417 visa workers never met the head labour hire
contractor and only had a mobile number to receive texts about the
start time for their next shift. The committee received many documents
including fake timesheets and envelopes with a figure scrawled on it
instead of a proper timesheet. The workers were paid in cash with no
deductions for tax.

When the shift was over, these workers returned to squalid and
overcrowded accommodation with no proper facilities, for which they
were charged exorbitant levels of rent by the labour hire contractor.
The rent payments were deducted straight from the workers’ pay packets,
most of the time in clear contravention of the law…

And regarding the student visa system, the Committee noted:

The hearings into 7-Eleven revealed that undocumented work
performed in breach of a visa condition (as opposed to visa overstayers
and persons in Australia without a visa) is a huge problem in
Australia. International students who were legally allowed to work in
Australia were required to work hours in excess of their visa
conditions precisely so their employers could then exploit the
technical breach of their visa conditions in order to underpay them and
rob them of their wages and other workplace entitlements…

Working (or being required to work) in breach of a visa
condition renders an international student liable to visa cancellation
and deportation and effectively excludes such workers from the
protections of employment law under the FW Act. This further reinforces
the power of unscrupulous employers over their workers and provides a
perverse incentive for employers to breach the law by coercing their
employees to breach the law…

The committee is particularly concerned about the pressure that
certain employers have exerted on temporary visa workers to breach a
condition of their visa in order to gain additional leverage over the
employee. The committee recognises the reality that unscrupulous
employers have exercised their power in the employment relationship and
the employee has been rendered vulnerable to exploitation…

The committee particularly thanks the former employees of
7-Eleven who appeared at the public hearing in Melbourne. Their
accounts of appalling exploitation and intimidation by their franchisee
employers painted a bleak picture of working life in Australia for
substantial numbers of temporary visa workers. Their stories were not
isolated occurrences to be brushed off as one-off incidents caused by a
few rogue employers. Rather, the overwhelming body of evidence
indicated that the problem of underpayment at 7-Eleven was, and may
remain, widespread and systemic.

The Committee makes a bunch of other recommendations around the
rights of temporary visa holders, compliance and enforcement issues,
franchising issues, etc. There are 33 Recommendations in total.

Check
the report out for yourself here.

The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) is seeking all members sign our petition (below) to lobby the Senate to oppose the Abbott Governments efforts to open the door for cheap foreign labour in the offshore sector. The Federal Liberal Party want to repeal legislation designed to protect Australian offshore workers and introduce MCV Visas. Under the MCV visa laws, there are no requirements for employers to demonstrate the unavailability of Australian workers. Australian workers will be left on the beach whilst cheap, subservient foreign workers take our jobs. There are no minimum rates of pay or conditions of employment. There will be a free for all. Sign the petition

https://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-secure-australian-maritime-jobs

This is not a campaign based on racism or xenophobia but a campaign to ensure we have the same right as workers in every country - the right to work. Abbot has used secrecy, force and deception to stop starving refugees desperate to come to Australia for a better life but has opened the door for employers to fly in foreign workers to take our jobs.

Unless we stop these bad laws, Australian labour will be locked out of the offshore sector (both marine and construction). Tony Abbot will not stop there. He will continue to de-regulate the labour market in other sectors of the economy including stevedoring, construction, transport, manufacturing and hospitality.

The MUA are encouraging workers (regardless of what union they are in or whether they are in a union) to sign the petition. In addition, the MUA is encouraging members to get politically active to ensure we have a political voice to protect our sovereign right to work in this country. Members who want a career in the maritime industry should contact the Branch and request an ALP form so they can join the maritime branch of the Australian Labour Party. We need to ensure that we get a voice in parliament to protect our job security, pay and conditions.

It is important that you circulate this petition to workmates, friends and family. The only thing that will defeat us is complacency.

In Struggle

Chris Cain
MUA WA Branch Secretary

Santa Claus is now in gear To punctuate our living year. He has a lot of jobs to do, including a trip to Humpty Doo. He was his own boss til 2002 It had been like that since toy trains were new. But Toyland Corporation wanted a share Of his global market reaching everywhere!

Santa acted on bad advice and sold the lot
He really didn’t care a jot
For monetary rewards
Which the boss could get with much lower awards,
As workers slaving all over the world
Earn much less than at the Pole we’re told
So many changes came to bear
Santa was nearly pulling out his hair!
His polar elves stood to get the sack
But he held fast to them as they had the knack
Of making toys beyond compare,
They truly had just so much flare.

So was it good or was it bad?
Or was Santa really "had"?
He works so hard with his staff of elves
He was told they would have much more for themselves,
But as they’re paid in toys, not money
The whole thing seems just terribly funny!

Santa is feeling the pressure of increased work as population and density of housing in cities increases. He sympathises with the nurses.

‘Twas the night before Christmas and Santa was stressed
His elves overworked but doing their best,
To keep up the good work which grew more and more
To satisfy children entitled by law,
To a visit from Santa on December 24
Down steep sooty chimneys and then out the door.

“There're too many houses and too many toys
To make and distribute to girls and to boys!”
Cried the elves overworked to skin and to bone ,
Stressed out of their brains while they talked on the phone,
Of how to deliver those millions of presents
When the moon on that night would be only a crescent

And since their last trip,10 million new houses
Awaited delivery of toys and of blouses,
They knew from last year the work had expanded
Crafting millions more toys e’er Santa landed
Back at the north pole from his twenty ten orbit,
Which took him so long he was candidly morbid

Crying “How can they ask for more work each year?
Productivity improvements come very dear
To us in our workplace we cannot do better
Please think of our health and do not send letters!
There’s too many of you and too few of us,
Our reindeer hang in there and don’t make a fuss

But when they look for a house and then they find eight.
Poor Santa gets worried as he’s running so late!
Those planners and pollies do not think ahead,
Not even to the night when their kids go to bed
Expecting one man to come to ever more homes
With wonderful trinkets and be-jeweled combs."

"It’s all very well for them and for theirs
I now have to climb all those millions of stairs!
I’m not getting younger and neither are they
But their superannuation will save the day.
Like all those dear nurses, I love what I do
But pressure from others just stuffs me up too.”

Growth is choking our city, our public transport, our parking lots, and streets and causing more and more "shortages", and rising costs - particularly in hospitals. Does it take a death of someone waiting to get some funding? More democracy in the system would solve a lot of the problems. When workers are too scared to complain vigorously, the patients aren't heard either. Does anyone have a choice in this system? Who is responsible?

Never enough money for hospitals with this rate of population growth

(Article adapted from a comment on deaths in hospitals on 10 October 2011.)

A May 2010 proposal for the Austin Hospital in Melbourne described the emergency department as treating about 16,500 more patients a year than it was built to manage, blowing out waiting times for care. The nearby Ivanhoe district had been declared an "activity centre" for more population growth. This means 17,000 NEW residents are planned for this small catchment area of the hospital in the next decades. The Austin Emergency Department (Casualty) now sees over 20,000 more patients/year than it was built for, or 40% more than a safe capacity.

Add all the other "activity centres" and the demands on this and all Melbourne's other hospitals will be compounded and escalate. Obviously this will further detract from medical care in rural areas. We are in a bottleneck gridlock of growth, and funding simply can't keep up. The two industries our State government largely rely upon- housing construction and foreign students - are both on shaky grounds, and both inherently require ongoing population growth. Most of this growth is fed by high immigration but its impact on hospitals is erroneously blamed on a small rise in the number of elderly patients, who are progressively being sidelined out of the main hospital system.

Does it take a death of someone waiting to get some funding?

There are already plenty of deaths, and other adverse events, but that doesn't stop it. And the deaths don't just occur to people on waiting lists. They happen to people who have already made it into hospital beds. Deaths in hospitals are 'managed' on paper until it becomes more or less impossible to attribute them to anything except isolated circumstances, or some scapegoated individual, sacrificed to the institution's survival. Inquiries almost never affect management; only hands-on staff, although management dictate how the hands-on work and often, to satisfy their own projects, interfere with common-sense priorities. It is very hard to sue a hospital. Their every step is managed by their insurers who have created a paper virtual system like wall-paper over what really happens. Hospital accreditation seems to be largely a protection racket, adding to costs and boosting the legalistic virtual system.

Unbalanced management layers crush basic services

Hospital management is top-heavy. Highly paid CEOs take their orders from a State Government keen to have a lovely virtual hospital for political reasons. Human resources teams interpret events according to the letter of very unfair workplace laws, to save money and to preserve power away from hands-on practitioners. There is a wad of middle managers dominated by narrow efficiency and treatment ideologies whose jobs and mortgages depend on them enforcing unworkable rules. Some are completely cynical, some are ignorant, some are so narrowly focused that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Others are fighting to make money to feed and house their own families and take no prisoners.

Unworkable rules suffocate resistance on the ground

The unworkable rules function to suppress on-the-ground criticism of conditions for patients and staff. The way this works is that, whenever a nurse or doctor stands up to management, some inevitable failure to document a detail will be raised as if it is a major issue of safety and professional competence. If the nurse or doctor tries to defend him/her self, the matter will be formalised into a first written warning. This is only two steps away from the sack. A professional can lose their ability to practice just by irritating management enough to have them find cronies to express unjustified alarm about that person's practice. Or they can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, when someone more powerful or popular or enmeshed needs a scapegoat. The workers are judged by boards which accept hearsay. Victorian law does not recognise defamation in Victorian workplaces, so management can say anything about a worker without proving it. They only way defamation can be pursued is after a person loses their jobs if the can show that it led to unfair dismissal, and we know how little power is left in that option.

How it works

Medication errors are a good example of vulnerability in practitioners. Medication mistakes are inevitable in practice. People under pressure make mistakes frequently. This is however not taken into account, although everyone knows that the pressures are becoming intolerable. Mistakes may be frequent, and every member of staff will make them, but management can still arbitrarily designate one of two identical incidents as an unusual and serious mistake and the other as inconsequential. They can ignore mistakes, as they often do, or they can decide to punish them. But if they choose to punish someone, the person accused has no access to the comparative statistics and information about other mistakes made that week, month, year by others, which would place their own mistake in perspective. In the 'merit system' different staff get different treatment according to how much management can rely on them to toe the line.

Toeing the line means that you don't protest against too many admissions, poor treatment of patients, lousy decisions.

Documenting death to death

Deaths are managed by insurers and lawyers. If you have something to say about a death, you had better have had the clairvoyance to document your concern in writing at the time, otherwise it 'did not happen'. "If it's not documented, it did not happen" is a common phrase. Everyone can know, but no-one dares to say. In fact most of what doctors and nurses do is done using speech or action; they cannot document everything in writing, but if they don't they cannot admit to it.

Australian nurses and doctors now spend enormous amounts of time documenting that they have done certain things required by law. It does not actually matter in a court of law whether or not they actually did these things; only that they wrote that they did. Very hard to prove a person didn't do something days or months later when they wrote down that they did. The system is full of cumbersome checkboxes indicating that you observed a patient, monitored them, and checked equipment and medications. For the last decade there have been several computers on every ward and nurses and doctors spend most of their time entering in notes about what they are supposed to have done. How much time does that leave to actually do what they are checking off? Not much.

The Faulty-Towers world of virtual hospitals

This is the age of construction, under duress, of virtual hospitals with virtual wards and virtual patients by real nurses and doctors who are, incidentally, trying to care for real patients. To survive psychologically it is necessary for nurses and doctors to cultivate cynicism. This way of working is exhausting because nurses and doctors spend most of their time and energy 'documenting' their virtual practice, and then squeezing in the real work in wards where there are continual admissions on top of the people already there who need care. No wonder people die. No wonder it is hard to staff hospitals.

Bosses who can't say no to politicians

And the doctors in charge of various departments seem to be chosen for having a style where they never say, "No." They never say, "Enough." They never say, "We have x beds and they are full, so we cannot take any more patients." So the wards and the country are in overshoot. And the nurses and doctors in the ranks have to wear this.

Keeping workers disorganised

One way that management wallpapers over the huge cracks in the system and to avoid revolts is to import workers from overseas. These nurses and doctors depend utterly on their jobs. They don't have access to free health care or unemployment benefits, so they are simply not going to blow the whistle. This is why having immigrant workers whose right to stay in the country depends on their retaining their job undermines nursing and medical care in Australian hospitals and working conditions. It also disorganises solidarity. Long-term staff cannot plan together to feedback sensibly to management in a workplace dominated by insecure new workers who won't back them up.

Accident Compensation Edifice without substance or compassion

Workers who suffer undue stress because of unfair accusations will often seek protection under the Accident Compensation System, only to find that their claims fail because disciplinary action was involved at some stage of the claim and the Accident Compensation laws have clauses that make it almost impossible to claim for treatment or illness if a disciplinary action was involved. Hospitals are quick to find coincidental reasons to formally discipline any worker who brings in a union. The Accident Compensation laws also allow huge lee-way for management decisions, which effectively means that if management give some reason, any reason for their action, however unreasonable, it will be deemed okay in Accident Compensation. It also doesn't have to be substantial; it can be a mere opinion.

It is also very hard for a worker to maintain any kind of resistance to unreasonable demands when they are defending their reputation and their ability to earn a living in an unfair system that does not really allow for reasonable human error. A system which talks about human rights for patients, but does not apply these to their staff, makes human rights impossible to uphold.

Bullying laws

Bullying laws also don't work because they are administered not to work. Unions describe individual cases with excellent documentation, but management and the law administrators simply avoid compliance with bullying law.

Your comments welcome. Your point of view and experience sought. The need for anonymity is understood.

Why doesn't the government cut land costs? High costs of land, and the resources it carries - energy and water - are responsible for our failing economy. The greatest costs to small and medium-sized businesses are the rents they pay for their shops, warehouses, and factories. The greatest costs to workers are the rents they pay for personal accommodation. Small and medium-sized businesses pay both for their business premises and for their personal accommodation. Manufacturing in Australia is losing out to high rents and housing costs. Wages must go up to satisfy the malignant effect of land-speculation, which government continues to encourage against our common welfare. But, why don't they just cut the land-costs? Stop pushing up property prices by reducing immigration and you won't have to put wages up. Business will become competitive on the world market again, because most of its profits won't go on rent of premises. Let's get rid of the property developers. Let's outlaw land speculation. [Title changed from "Cut land-costs, not wages. Down with property developers, Up with workers!" on 9 Oct 2011.]

We hear that over 90% of small businesses quickly go broke. Some of you may assume that this is because they are all incompetent. That would mean that you have a low opinion of your fellow Australian and that you haven't considered the costs that operate in our society and are causing our factories to close.

The greatest costs to small and medium-sized businesses are the rents they pay for their shops, warehouses, and factories.

Do we ever hear the Liberal Party or the Labor Party say anything about this?

No.

But land costs and rent costs erode profit margins and drive everyone except the major corporations out of business.

The major corporations (which include newspapers, banks and developers) invest in land and are responsible for high rents and mortgages. They constantly lobby against ordinary Australians for more immigrants to keep those costs high. They are in the business of putting the rest of us out of business.

Why is the government ignoring that land cost factors completely dwarf all the other factors causing Australian manufacturing and most other small business to founder?

The public service is bringing in contractors in order to keep wages down. Once they did not have the right to do this. Once they had to negotiate fairly.

We are losing our rights to decent wages and conditions at the same time that big business is forcing up rents and housing costs.

The mass media is full of nonsense about how the economy cannot afford for wage rises. The mass media has nothing to say about the huge iceberg our economy is running up against in rising land prices. It only talks about how a tiny minority of people who have invested in second properties are able to sell their houses for more money. It says nothing about how business fails and people become homeless due to these rising costs.

Now I hear of how state governments are talking about bringing in contractors to undercut cleaners' wages. Cleaners are arguably among the most poorly paid workers in Australian industry. They work very hard and have little status.

The same thing is happening to drivers, with local governments considering colluding to introduce strike-breakers in order to stop industrial action to negotiate small wage rises in another ill-paid industry.

Why is it always those who can least afford it who must bear the brunt of our ill-run economy, whilst the CEOs and head-kickers get huge wages for simply being mean and greedy?

Please send this cartoon to Julia and Wayne and your local politicians and ask them, "Why don't you just cut the land costs?"

In spite of the fact that 79% of the Queensland public oppose privatisation, 66% would support industrial action to stop the Bligh Government's $15 billion fire sale and many union members have expressed a willingness to strike, the Queensland unions have failed to take the only action that could possibly cause the Queensland Government to change its mind.

See also: Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, Railing against privatisation by Daniel Hurst in the SMH of 29 Apr 10, Paul Lucas heckled at Labour Day march in Brisbane, as PM talks up super changes of 3 May 10, ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10.

The following is taken from a PDF leaflet (69KB) I intended to distribute on Labor Day. Unfortunately, a friend's photocopier, which I had been relying upon to duplicate these broke down, so they were not distributed. Some of the material is borrowed from my article ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10. - JS

In disregard of the wishes of 79% of the Queensland public, the Bligh government is pushing ahead with plans to sell off $15 billion of our assets.

Example of billboard featuring angry union members. Were
these ever intended by our union officials to be more than
empty bombast?

When the fire sale was first announced, in May 2009, 2 months after the elections, the outcry from the Queensland public was unprecedented. In the following months talk-back shows, newspaper letter columns and online forums were overwhelmed with opposition to the sale. Many people previously unsympathetic to trade unionism actually pledged their support for any industrial action against the sale.

That industrial action would have enjoyed public support was confirmed in December when a Courier-Mail online poll indicated 66% public support for the Redbank railway workers who struck upon learning their workshops were to be included in Fraser's privatisation plans.

The following motion was carried unanimously by a mass meeting of AMWU members at the Redbank workshops in June 2009:

Yet the unions failed to act.

Instead, they decided to undertake a long drawn-out campaign with redundant priorities, notably to 'convince' a public already solidly on-side. They also warned the Bligh Government of terrible retribution at the ballot box in 2012.

They seemed not to realise that the delay involved in an unnecessary attempt to convince the minority 16% of the Queensland public to oppose the sell-off would assist the further legislative and financial entrenchment of the sales (for example the $200 million paid to the commercial banks to oversee privatisation).

At a privatisation forum on 10 April, Queensland ETU Branch Secretary, Peter Simpson gave his view that the fight against privatisation was already lost, as I recollect, for the reasons decribed above. In view of Simpson's gloomy prognosis, perhaps union members and the broader public that had looked to unions such as the ETU to show leadership are entitled to know:

1. 1.The reasons the unions had for relying on their campaign thus far to convince Bligh and Fraser to change their minds;
2. If the unions truly imagined that their feeble campaign would succeed, at what point did it finally dawn on them that it would not; and
3. Why, at that point, did the unions not give their members the choice of taking the stronger action that would have been necessary for success?

In fact, although the fight has been made needlessly more difficult, the fight to stop privatisation is far from over.

Any union, which stands up to the Bligh Government, is almost certainly assured of overwhelming support from the Queensland public, disgusted by this Government's dictatorial arrogance and wanton deception in the 2009 elections.

An excuse sometimes offered to not take industrial action is the fear that the unionists may face punitive fines under anti-union laws inherited from the Howard Government. However, when railway workers struck against privatisation last December, the Bligh Government dared not invoke these laws against them and there is no reason to assume that they would dare do so now against workers striking against policies opposed by more than 79% of the Queensland public.

What you can do: Demand that your unions call meetings to give you the choice of whether or not to oppose privatisation with industrial action. Support other unions which take industrial action. Send me a copy of any motions carried, so that I can make these known to others on http://candobetter.net.

James Sinnamon, Brisbane Independent for Truth, Democracy, the Environment and Economic Justice, Australian Federal elections, 2010.

james[AT]candobetter.net, 0412 319669, PO Box 86, Red Hill Qld 4059
See also: http://candobetter.net/StopQueenslandFireSale http://candobetter.net/QldElections

See also: Queensland Not For Sale - the Qld Council of Union's anti-privatisation web site, Railing against privatisation by Daniel Hurst in the SMH of 29 Apr 10, Paul Lucas heckled at Labour Day march in Brisbane, as PM talks up super changes of 3 May 10, ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 10.

Wednesday 21 May, News from France.

In France at the moment there are national strikes over government proposals to make people work for 41 years instead of 40 years in order to obtain full pensions. In 2015 there will be around 14m workers to 18m retirees, according to demographic trends.

For some time France has been preparing for this eventuality, whilst noting that there will be more employment for young people, currently suffering relatively high unemployment.

On the France2 television 8pm news two economists were interviewed for responses to the question of how to fund retirement.

Michel Godet, an economics lecturer at the National Conservatory of Arts and Trades, (CNAM) said, "People will have to work longer so that they can save for longer."

Liem Hoang-ngoc – University Paris 1 economist said, "Just by asking people to save for longer does not mean that they can save for longer, since employers are forcibly retiring people at younger and younger ages." He said that there were many other ways of tackling the situation. He proposed a stock options tax and a tax on corporate profits.

Michel Godet responded by saying, "Taxes on big business profits are anti-competitive… we live in an open market … taxing big business will make it go overseas."

Liem Hoang-ngoc didn't get a chance to respond.

My thought was that, if corporations went off-shore, France could then refuse to import goods from corporations that refused to pay tax. Another good reason for national economies - to have control over predacious big business.

Liem Hoang-ngoc's papers are on-line (in French) at http://matisse.univ-paris1.fr/ One is called, "Long live taxes!"

(Note that the French youth to age 'discrepancy' is quite a deal more severe than in Australia, but that, as with all thing, it will pass in its own time, like the proverbial goat through a boa-constrictor. It is the result of a baby-boom in the 1950s and 1960s. In 2050, the French population will begin to slim down to relatively equal age cohorts. )