Right to withdraw labour is a human right

Furthermore, the lack of any right to strike action as a form of political protest makes actions such as the famous “Green Bans” of the 1970s, or the kind of general strike action taken recently by French unions against regressive labour “reform” literally criminal. This winds back basic human rights beyond what is tolerable for any nation, let alone a country such as Australia - which is a signatory to the relevant ILO conventions.

Several questions are also unanswered. How many protected conditions will be reintroduced in what Julia Gillard has claimed will be a “simplified Award system”? And to what extent will restrictions on trade union organisation be removed? In particular: will union organisers have their right of entry to workplaces restored?

That such issues are still in question is very troubling. Without the return of a more detailed system of Awards, protecting a range of minimum wages and conditions in any given industry, the industrially weak will stand to be marginalised, and driven to accept a “bare minimum” “safety net”.

Some trade union leaders have come out against Rudd’s proposals for the ALP Platform, but by and large the response from the ACTU and elsewhere has been resigned and muted. Victorian Electrical Trades Union Secretary, Dean Mighell was one who dared raise his head above the parapet:

"We will be putting it on the other unions: do not accept anti-union behaviour. The right to strike, secret ballots and abolition of the right to campaign for industry agreements are fundamental … We don't want Labor adopting silly IR policies just to be seen to distance themselves from the union movement. I think it is anti-union. To abolish industry-wide agreements is crazy."

Secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, Brian Boyd and Australian Manufacturing Workers Union Secretary, Doug Cameron have also expressed concern. Cameron’s concern was swiftly rebuked by Rudd, however, with little in the way of resistance or response by the trade union leader. The Labor leader’s sharp, almost abusive response was intended to cow Cameron into submission: to force him into a corner where Rudd was effectively saying: “it’s either my credibility or yours”.

Boyd, also, while maintaining in-principle opposition to Rudd’s position, indicated he may be willing to hold his tongue to avoid a conflict.

Without leadership now, therefore, it appears Rudd’s position is likely to prevail with barely a whimper: with a pre-conference stitch-up reducing ALP internal democracy to a media stunt.

Notably, however, The Greens have provided a media release condemning the Labor leader’s position, quoting Bob Brown:

"There is now little difference between the ALP and Coalition on the right of workers to take industrial action. The Greens are committed to an unfettered, legal right to strike as a fundamental right of workers to promote and defend their economic and social interests.”

This raises another question. If the ALP will not stand up to be counted as the party of organised labour in this country, perhaps the ACTU would be better placed not “putting all its eggs in one basket”. Perhaps unions ought to inform members of the policies of other parties, such as The Greens, thus pressuring the ALP to be less equivocal in supporting its union base.

The author has been a member of the ALP for well over a decade now, but I am beyond the bankrupt philosophy: “my party right or wrong”. Rudd is riding high in the polls: he can afford resistance to his position at the ALP National Conference, and can adapt to meet any broader campaign for labour rights that might follow.