Howard's plan to destroy unions

Anna Pha

The Government claims its $6 billion vote-buying exercise 
announced last week will make families, the aged, child care, 
small businesses, apprentices, students, and numerous other 
groups better off. But Howard has promised employers one of the 
biggest, fattest offers yet, with proposed legislation that will 
leave millions of workers without any form of protection under 
the industrial relations system.

He would shut unions out of the workplace and return to the 
master servant relationship of the 19th century. There can be no 
doubt that this is one promise he intends to keep.

"A new Independent Contractors Act would ensure that freedom of 
contract for independent contractors is enshrined and preserved, 
that they have a firewall around them to protect them from the 
deprivation of unions and unfriendly Labor governments who would 
seek to impose limits and constraints on their freedom to 
contract", Howard boasted at the Liberal Party campaign launch in 
Brisbane on September 26.

The Independent Contractors Act would completely remove so-called 
independent contractors from the coverage of the Workplace 
Relations Act or state industrial relations systems, leaving them 
with no protection. It would be a big leap towards total 
deregulation of wages and working conditions.

Howard did not bother to hide his hatred of unions or contempt 
for workers, declaring he has a "passionate belief in flexible 
workplaces free of rigidity in the industrial system and unwanted 
union interference". By "flexible workplaces" he means bosses are 
a law unto themselves — no restrictions or legally enforceable 
limits on their exploitation of workers.

"Freedom to contract" is the catch cry, meaning the bogus 
"freedom" in which collective action and joining a union are 
against the contract's stipulations. Under this scenario, 
enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) and the industrial 
relations commissions are out. Thus "freedom to contract" has 
replaced that old lie of "be your own boss".

Furthermore, the reference to independent contractors is 
misleading. The Act could affect millions of ordinary workers.

At present there are around 1.4 million contractors operating in 
the workforce. These cover a large range of occupations and 
industries and take many forms. The Act would encourage many more 
employers to replace their existing permanent workforces with 
contractors, or convert them where possible into contractors.

That is one of the aims of the policy — to wind back the 
existing legal relationship between employers and employees and 
replace it by a system which removes trade unions, deregulates 
wages and conditions and leaves workers taking full 
responsibility for their own insurance, superannuation, sickness 
and other leave payments.

Big takeback

Trade unions have won many important rights, working conditions 
and wage rates through more than a century and a half of 
struggle. There is nothing that Howard and his employer friends 
would like better than to take all of these things back. But 
first they would have to eliminate the unions.

This has been the aim of the Howard Government since it was 
elected. Instead of trying to abolish the federal industrial 
relations system with its awards, its EBAs, the courts and 
commission in one go — which would bring a swift response from 
workers and the public at large — the Government has taken a 
more gradual approach.

It has stripped back awards, shifted the focus to decentralised 
EBAs, fiercely promoted individual work contracts (known as 
Australian Workplace Agreements — AWAs), overseen the 
casualisation of a large percentage of the workforce and 
encouraged the replacement of directly employed workers by 
contractors.

Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews is to announce a $12 
million package designed to push more workers into AWAs.

The Government severely restricted the right to take industrial 
action and the rights of trade unions.

Each of these steps has the aim of taking away wages and working 
conditions, de-unionising workplaces and eliminating collective 
bargaining.

This latest proposal is a logical step in that process.

The term contractor covers a multitude of forms of employment and 
types of work. They may be self-employed trades people, taxi 
drivers, sole traders, owner-driver truckies, cleaners, sub-
contractors on building sites, etc.

The key difference between a contractor and an ordinary employee 
is that the contractor is given a price for a job. The contractor 
is responsible for insurance, and all leave and superannuation, 
not the employer. In one fell swoop a host of important gains by 
workers are removed, and left to the contractor.

Contractors are widely used on building sites where they may work 
alongside permanently employed workers. When a construction 
company needs bricklayers, for example, it might contract a 
labour hire firm to do a specific job for a specific price. The 
labour hire firm then takes on bricklayers to carry out the work.

Building industry

The building unions have fought hard to win agreements with 
labour hire companies to ensure that the subbies are employed 
under the same wages and conditions as other workers on the site 
under the EBA, and that their superannuation, long service leave 
and other payments are made by the employer.

They have fought hard to retain unionised sites, with a site EBA 
for all workers, regardless of their legal form of employment.

In the eyes of the bosses and the government this defeats the 
purpose of contractors — to be able to pit them against each 
other and drive down costs (wages and conditions) as they compete 
for contracts.

The Cole Commission into the Building and Construction Industry 
gave this question a great deal of attention, and following its 
report the Government put legislation before the Senate to bring 
a halt to union protection in the industry. The legislation 
fortunately did not get through the Senate. Now the Government 
wants to strengthen and extend that legislation to all 
industries.

Regardless of the technicalities of the legal form of employment, 
the essence of the relationship between a worker and the company 
remains the same. What changes are the rights and protections 
accorded under law.

Workers, whether they are "self-employed" contractors, or 
employed by a contractor to work for another employer, are still 
exploited when working for a company: the company's aim remains 
that of increasing its profits by keeping the cost of labour as 
low as possible.

Howard has promised a range of other measures to promote 
"entrepreneurship" based on an appeal to the individual's 
"independence" and "freedom" to encourage workers to become 
contractors. No doubt there will be many employers keen to take 
advantage of this opportunity.

When voting on October 9, it is important to give first 
preference to candidates who will not only protect public health 
and education, but also be prepared to defend the rights of 
workers and trade unions and support collective bargaining.

Vote left and progressive candidates such as the Greens, who have 
a proven record in defending trade unions and workers.

Vote Howard Out!