Right to withdraw labour is a human right

Again, according to the SMH: “The statistics, which the Government has been refusing to release for months, also show a third of the individual employment contracts lodged during the first six months of WorkChoices provided no wage rises during the life of the agreements.”

Most agreements stripped previously accepted conditions, including shift loadings (removed in 76 per cent of the agreements), annual leave loading (59 per cent), and declared public holidays (22.5 per cent). What is more, these laws were introduced without a mandate. The new and radical measures designed to outlaw, under almost all circumstances, the withdrawal of labour and criminalise the legitimate claims of unions in the process of collective bargaining, were introduced without first having been released as policy prior to the last election.

The response of the public has been overwhelming. According to a recent AC Nielson poll, only “24 per cent of [those surveyed] supported the legislation while 59 per cent opposed it”.

Kevin Rudd’s response to WorkChoices

So far some in the labour movement are still waiting for more detail on Rudd’s response to WorkChoices, and his agenda for the ALP platform: this only days from National Conference.

Rudd has made a number of points clear: clear enough to shatter any delusion that unionists and conference delegates should “hold their tongues” and adopt a “wait and see” approach. Despite record low levels of strike activity, and a labour movement that is shrinking further and further into submission and marginalisation, Rudd has emerged as something of a zealot on the issue, decrying trade union militancy:

"Industrial disputes are serious. They hurt workers, they hurt businesses, they can hurt families and communities, and they certainly hurt the economy … There can be no going back to the industrial culture of an earlier age."

Speaking to the National Press Club, Rudd has vowed to retain a substantial portion of the WorkChoices legislation. Strike pay, according to Rudd, ought to remain illegal. Secret ballots ought to be compulsory before any withdrawal of labour is legal. And if Rudd’s view prevails here, unfair dismissal laws still will not apply to millions of workers. Employers with less than 15 staff will still be able to sack employees for any reason if they have worked for the company for less than a year. For businesses with more than 15 people, workers will only be able to claim unfair dismissal if they have been there for at least six months.

Such a position makes a mockery of Labor’s former commitment to “rip up” the WorkChoices legislation, restoring unfair dismissal provisions, and retaining the right of workers to withdraw their labour regardless of the result of any secret ballot. If workers are not allowed to withdraw their labour, what are they other than slaves?

Pattern bargaining is also turning out to be an issue of great contention. Rudd has stated at the National Press Club that: “employees … will not be able to strike in support of an industry-wide agreement.”

This is of concern, because without industry-wide solidarity, the industrially weak will be isolated and victimised, and the conditions they are driven to accept may well flow on to the rest of any given industry as a “race to the bottom” follows.

And since Rudd has argued that strike action should only be allowable during the negotiation period for any enterprise agreement, this gives workers no recourse to withdraw their labour should employers act against their interests during the interim period.

In particular, this leaves no scope for strike action in defence of health and safety concerns; to remedy what workers may perceive as unfair dismissal; to negotiate redundancy agreements in instances of restructuring; or to alter the conditions of an agreement should circumstances change.