Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The sales campaign for WorkChoices Lite begins ...

Expand Messages
  • bobgould987
    By Bob Gould I m working on an overview of the Labor Party national conference and the subsequent hysteria of the bourgeoisie about the new industrial
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 30 9:16 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      By Bob Gould

      I'm working on an overview of the Labor Party national conference and
      the subsequent hysteria of the bourgeoisie about the new industrial
      relations policy, and what it means.

      These are contradictory developments that require careful description
      and analysis.

      The incorrigible Dave Riley belts out a nonsensical
      better-worse-the-better position about Laborism in his inimitable way
      claims for the 200th time that Laborism is totally finished and the
      Socialist Alliance can arise from the ashes. He'll be a long time waiting.

      Norm Dixon posts a leaflet signed by some trade union activists, in
      the first instance Dean Mighell, titled an Open Letter to the ALP
      Conference. The difficulty with that document is that despite its
      sensible sentiments, I and others saw no evidence that it was
      distributed to delegates at the conference. What I and others did see
      was the ubiquitous Jacqueline on behalf of the Socialist Alliance
      yelling aggressively hostile remarks at the delegates as they went in.

      In the industrial relations debate there were 18 speakers, including
      Michele O'Neil, Dean Mighell, Dave Noonan (Victorian CFMEU) and Dave
      Oliver (AMWU), who the DSP is quite sensibly supporting in the current
      Metalworkers Union election. These four, in particular, were properly
      critical of the aspects of the IR proposals that were unacceptable to
      militant unions.

      Nevertheless, they all stressed that on balance they supported the IR
      proposals despite reservations, as the best that was on offer. They
      all voted for the resolution, which was carried unanimously.

      Since the conference the media and many employer organisations have
      gone ballistic, saying the Labor IR policy makes far too many
      concessions to unions and workers.

      The situation is clearly contradictory.

      The four senior union officials I mentioned are important figures in
      the broad labour movement and are often presented by the DSP
      leadership as part of the militant trade union current. In they normal
      course of events they have much more clout in the workers movement
      than either Bob Gould or the DSP.

      I strongly suggest to Norm Dixon and Green Left that they interview
      these four militant ALP union leaders to get their views on the
      current situation facing the workers movement, which ought inevitably
      to include their views on why it was necessary to vote for the
      resolution at the same time as being critical of it.

      Sensible, in-depth interviews like that would be more use than
      Potemkin village meanderings from Dave Riley or leaflets produced
      after the event for the record that don't appear to have been widely
      distributed to conference delegates.
    • dave_r_riley
      -Oh thankyou Bob Gould for your informative contribution. We will wait with baited breath on your analysis of the bourgeoisie on this matter while the working
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 30 9:48 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        -Oh thankyou Bob Gould for your informative contribution. We will wait
        with baited breath on your analysis of the bourgeoisie on this matter
        while the working class is left to fend for themselves.

        I will return to Potemkin on the next available bus and wait for your
        missive on the matter...

        But tell me this, Bob: is this a bourgeois party we are dealing with
        here or a workers party? Is this party under discussion(that is IF we
        are allowed to discusses it that is, as you have protested so often in
        the past when we do) by default FOR the workers or FOR the bosses?

        Or isn't that question not allowed?

        And what, given your many years of experience as a loyal member of the
        afore mentioned party, should the more progressive element within its
        ranks be doing as a consequence of this rout?

        I recall that Carmen Lawrence (remember her? she was somebody in the
        ALP for a time)urged us all to "come back again and again" to each ALP
        conference to win the change we seek.

        (By the way, was Carmen there this year?}

        So will you be advising all those who oppose this massive sellout of
        working class interests to sign on with those like the letter you
        mentioned -- as you did align yourself 25 years ago in your pristine
        youth in response to the Prices & Incomes Accord --or merely shrug
        your bookseller's shoulders and return to the everyday business as usual.

        It is a conundrum, isn't it, Robert Gould? A mighty conundrum. Because
        after a recent career dedicated absolutely to pouring shit on the
        Socialist Alliance and all those who sail in her, falling back on DSP
        or SA baiting aint going to be so easy now that the chickens, as it
        were, have come home to pee.

        (Maybe it was because we were so sectarian that the politics has
        panned out so? What you reckon? Its' "our" fault?)

        Opps..I'll have to continue this later, Robert. Excuse me. Here comes
        my bus....

        PS:But when you work it all out, please let me know what the lie of
        the land is.



        dave riley
      • Nick Fredman
        One ironic aspect of the ACTU s cheerleading is that, I think, even from a narrow ALP-electoralist perspective a little mild criticism would have been
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 30 10:35 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          One ironic aspect of the ACTU's cheerleading is that, I think, even from a
          narrow ALP-electoralist perspective a little mild criticism would have been
          preferable, in that it might have undercut the increasingly absurd "union
          dinosaurs control the ALP" theme in some sections of the establishment
          media. Murdoch has decided this is the script, and his chief Aussie
          mouthpiece Paul Kelly dutifully follows http://tinyurl.com/2cwkzo

          As posted earlier (glparramatta 11.06am) the 7.30 Report is following the
          same script, by featuring Dean Mighell's suggestion that the implementation
          of the ALP policy would lead to "fun", rather than his criticisms of the
          attacks on the right to strike as expressed in the 'open letter' posted and
          presumably at the conference. It would be interesting to know if the 7.30
          Report clip of Mighell was incomplete or out of context.

          The editorial line of the Fairfax group is BTW fairly hostile to
          WorkChoices, judging by the number of articles in the SMH about the bad
          impacts, the government covering up the data about this, etc, and their much
          more balanced lead on the ALP conf http://tinyurl.com/yr6jcb. Why I don't
          know, perhaps the bourgeoisie isn't as united in anti-ALP hysteria as as Bob
          Gould always thinks they are, taking as he always does the Murdoch media for
          their class as a whole.

          On 1/5/07 2:16 PM, "bobgould987" <bobgould987@...> wrote:

          > subsequent hysteria of the bourgeoisie... Norm Dixon posts a leaflet signed by
          > some trade union activists...
          > Sensible, in-depth interviews like that would be more use than
          > Potemkin village meanderings from Dave Riley or leaflets produced
          > after the event for the record that don't appear to have been widely
          > distributed to conference delegates.

          Actually it was me who posted the open letter Bob. Your absence from us
          doesn't seem to have improved your inability to reference anything properly.
          I don't know how well or if at all it was distributed, though I don't assume
          like Bob seems to that something I haven't seen doesn't exist. It was
          obviously circulated and signed before the conference anyway.

          I'll be interested in observations on the conference by Bob, or anyone with
          half a militant bone in their body. I'd be interested to know if David
          Bradbury's attempts to lobby delegates and get them to watch a preview
          version of his new anti-nuclear film A Hard Rain had any effect on the
          uranium debate. I've been encouraging people to get this film and organise
          screenings, in the new context of Howard's crazed plan to turn every
          Australian town into a Springfield and the ALP's uranium sell-out.
        • rolandsrudebox
          Dave? Do you and your soy latte socialist buddies want to defeat the Howard government this year or not? Your idiotic tirades against Kevin Rudd s industrial
          Message 4 of 13 , May 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dave?
            Do you and your soy latte socialist buddies want to defeat the Howard
            government this year or not?
            Your idiotic tirades against Kevin Rudd's industrial changes are
            laughable. I and most unionists would prefer "WorkChoices Lite"
            to "WorkChoices Plus" that Howard would introduce if re-elected.
            Unless it is proven otherwise one can only assume that Green Left
            Weekly and the Socialist Alliance want Howard re-elected.
            Roland
          • alanb1000
            ... It looks like the troll is back again... again... again... You would think he had something better to do. As always, don t feed him.
            Message 5 of 13 , May 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              "rolandsrudebox" wrote:
              >
              > Dave?
              > Do you and your soy latte socialist buddies want to defeat the Howard
              > government this year or not?

              It looks like the troll is back again... again... again...

              You would think he had something better to do.

              As always, don't feed him.
            • Nick Fredman
              ... I shouldn t bother feeding him but I d be happy to offer him some of the yummy chai rooibos tea with warmed rice milk I m having at work right now.
              Message 6 of 13 , May 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On 3/5/07 9:56 AM, "rolandsrudebox" <rolandsrudebox@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dave?
                > Do you and your soy latte socialist buddies want to defeat the Howard
                > government this year or not?

                I shouldn't bother feeding him but I'd be happy to offer him some of the
                yummy chai rooibos tea with warmed rice milk I'm having at work right now.
                Rolandtedioustroll is clearly immune to facts and logic but I'll point out
                for the benefit of others who are actually interested in the issue and
                discussion without abuse and caricature that, I'm told, a Sydney teachers
                association voted nearly unanimously yesterday, on the motion of 2 Socialist
                Alliance members, to defend the right to strike and call for another
                national day of action. I think it may have been Canterbury-Bankstown TA
                (maybe someone could clarify?), where I'm sure there's fierce factional
                struggle between the advocates of latte, chai, stewed Tetly tea and
                International House.
              • dave_r_riley
                ... Back in days gone by this sort of carte blanche gung ho support regardless was backed up with physical violence or the threat thereof. Similarly labelling
                Message 7 of 13 , May 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In GreenLeft_discussion@yahoogroups.com, "rolandsrudebox"
                  <rolandsrudebox@...> wrote:

                  > laughable. I and most unionists would prefer "WorkChoices Lite"
                  > to "WorkChoices Plus" that Howard would introduce if re-elected.
                  > Unless it is proven otherwise one can only assume that Green Left
                  > Weekly and the Socialist Alliance want Howard re-elected.

                  Back in days gone by this sort of carte blanche gung ho support
                  regardless was backed up with physical violence or the threat thereof.
                  Similarly labelling critics as members of the Santamaria's National
                  Civic Council was also embraced as a shush-ing tactic. Roland may be a
                  troll but he poses the issue squarely from the POV that has been fostered.

                  This is the great tragedy of Laborism. The bottom line is bullying and
                  coercion when the peer group pressure alone doesn't work. The main
                  game is to turn critics into pariahs.

                  And people go along with that. Take Roland as an example.

                  While I note that in the past -- especially in the lead up to the 1983
                  election that bought Bob Hawke to the Lodge -- there was a sort of
                  platform massaging in play that included some credits as the proposed
                  "Accord" had a few sweeteners and generally to a man and woman trade
                  unionists and especially the trade union left were enamoured by its
                  false promises. For the sake say of a 38 hour week -- many thought,
                  most in fact, that it was worth the horse trading.

                  38 hour week! What a laugh! What's the present average? 45? 47? So
                  where were the benefits of this "Accord" located in real time.

                  This time around, Roland tells it as it lays -- and he puts the issue
                  crudely and bluntly: ya either for Rudd's WCLite or ya for Howard!

                  But why should this current version of industrial relation the "it"
                  around which we are supposed to draw the line and rally? Why not some
                  other? Why not one that at least guaranteed the right to strike, did
                  not make it illegal to do so, and enshrined that right , like the
                  international conventions on human rights do. Why should trade
                  unionists campaign to make striking illegal? Because that's what the
                  ACTU is asking of them. Given the slogan -- Your Rights at Work /Worth
                  fighting/voting for" -- what rights are we defending with this package?

                  I cannot see a one.

                  Roland must think that as well as being laughable, I'm a fool. But I
                  can see a gaping hole in WC Lite that no amount of spin will be able
                  to patch up.

                  It is easy to forget that the bottom line of any industrial relations
                  package is the hip pocket. Thats' what Work Choices is about. Howard
                  isn't mean to workers for the sake of it -- the meanness has a price
                  tag and underpinning Work Choices is the business of moving billions
                  of dollars into corporate coffers. It';s about driving down wages;
                  slashing production costs and increasing the absolute level of
                  exploitation of workers by making them work harder and longer ...for
                  less.

                  When we come to Rudd's version of Work Choices the same issues are in
                  play and the same prize is at stake. What Rudd brings to the board
                  room table is a compliant workforce held in check and made docile by
                  an engaged trade union bureaucracy which is nonetheless constrained by
                  such key elements as a no strike clause.

                  In the end which package will be more useful, and more profitable, to
                  corporate Australia, to the capitalist class here? That's what the
                  debate is about now as far as Labor is concerned because thats' where
                  the main sell is being pitched: to the board rooms of the land.

                  Roland says he prefers WCLite because it is a softer touch -- even
                  though we are still being taken(at least he should concede that). The
                  problem is that in the end that may not be the case. The Accord years
                  in Australia moved billions of dollars from wages to profits --
                  generating such largesse that Australia under Hawke and Keating was
                  more effective in driving down wages and conditions while upping
                  profits than Thatcher was able to do in the UK or Reagan and Bush
                  Senior could manage in the USA .

                  Under Labor's last turn in the saddle, profits jumped and trade union
                  membership collapsed while real wages nose dived and working hours
                  climbed.

                  The brutal irony is that today the economy is more or less booming,
                  there's a labour shortage in many sectors -- but the peak bodies of
                  the trade union movement insist that we all should defer to a 21st
                  Capitalism that wants more.

                  And Roland says he prefers hammer "b" hitting him than hammer "c"..and
                  I should join him in his preference...

                  Excuse me if I bow out of that masochistic game.

                  dave riley
                • rogerraven
                  Corrupt and incestuous connections between the unions and the ALP are best indicated by the Combet/Robertson/Lawrence jostling, based on the experience that
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Corrupt and incestuous connections between the unions and the ALP are
                    best indicated by the Combet/Robertson/Lawrence jostling, based on
                    the experience that the ACTU President and/or secretary is pretty
                    well guaranteed a safe Labor seat. We have also seen unionist Doug
                    Cameron set to take over from George Campbell as an ALP Senator as a
                    result of similar machinations.

                    Perhaps a DSP/SA press release, including a table or diagramme (a
                    picture is worth a thousand words), listing the destinations of all
                    the ACTU officeholders over the last 25 years would do much to
                    demonstrate the consistency of the rewards for union bosses who sell
                    out workers.

                    There is a striking contrast between the Hard Labor / Big Union
                    embrace of Rudd and his ideology and the deference shown by them to
                    business criticisms of Rudd's sweatshop laws for requiring a minimum
                    size for the sweatshop. Hard Labor's machine-men seem concerned not
                    whether they've moved too far to the Right, but whether they've not
                    moved Far Right enough.

                    DSP/SA is under no obligation to prefer either of the ALP or the
                    Coalition, or indeed any other political party.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.