>http://www.theage.com.au/news/kenneth-davidson/history-says-revolution-will-be-shortlived/2005/11/16/1132016854835.html
>
>
>I hope KD is right about the Australian difference. But something else
>is happening at the same time. That is a tremendous weakening of the
>right to strike, comparable to the passage of the Taft-Hartley act in
>the U.S. in the 50's. It is worth remembering that passage of
>Taft-Hartley provoke anger and large demonstrations, but ended up
>sticking and gradually eroding labors power in the U.S. One of the
>points was that thereafter, even when the Democrats were in control
>they were not interesting rolling back such a great blow against
>labor. Question; I know that Australian Labor, though not as right
>wing as the U.S. democrats has a strong neo-liberal streak. If they
>get back into office, are you sure they will roll back either the IR
>or the anti-strike provisions? Cause if not, you may have just seen a
>permanent change.
It would be unwise to underestimate how spineless the ALP is. It stands for nothing and hence will fall for anything. It would be hard for it to avoid rolling back the IR legislation though, this is something the entire labour movement is powerfully opposed to.
Rolling back the welfare changes might be another story of course and don't forget that these changes designed to force all sole parents and many disabled pensioners onto unemployment benefits (and force the unemployed to accept any job, no matter how low the pay and lousy the conditions) may have much more effect on wages and conditions than the IR changes themselves.
The IR changes on their own only remove the regulation which, to some slight degree, act as a sort of transparent guauge of market forces. But so long as the labour market is reasonably healthy, market forces have and would continue to determine wages. Minimum wage laws can't defy gravity. If you want to radically change the market wage, you have to throw a spanner into the supply and demand machinery and that is what the welfare changes are intended to achieve - increase the supply of cheap labour and put a bit of fear into workers at the bottom to give the employer a bit of a negotiating advantage.
Remember, the existing industrial relations system wasn't designed the way it was to help workers, it was designed to cancel out the advantage a unionised workforce had. Instead of unions being able to just lay down the law, they had to get the wages and conditions they negotiated ratified by an industrial relations court. The new system is only a disadvantage to the extent that workers are no longer so well organised as the old days, but that can soon be remedied if workers find unions to their advantage again.
Its all very well for the law to give employers the right to negotiate individual contracts, but it won't help if workers whose skills are in demand refuse to play along.
Even the law changes which seek to hamper organising are only meaningful to the extent that they are obeyed. Strikes which are actually legal are a very recent innovation anyhow in this country, but the laws which proscribed them were unenforceable. Union organisers simply refused to pay fines and workers went on strike if their union officials were jailed under penal provisions. So the employers didn't dare ask the courts to enforce such laws.
Like I always say, the pointy end of the class war is the unemployed. One way or the other. I'm not sure Kenneth Davidson's analysis is correct of course. I think he's correct that the poor in Australia don't generally feel to blame for being poor. But is he right to say that poor Americans do?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas