UNIONS have called a snap nationwide day of action to be held early next month in protest at Liberal-National Party policies which have undermined rights at work and living standards.

Protests will take place in major cities around the country on 4 March, as workers turn up the heat on the beleaguered Coalition Government of Tony Abbott.

The announcement of the rallies comes in the wake of the Coalition’s disastrous result in the Queensland election on

31 January, where Premier Campbell Newman was ousted from his own seat and the Liberal-National Party suffered an 8% swing against it after a campaign in which unions played an instrumental role.

ACTU President Ged Kearney said Queenslanders had sent a clear message that they will not sit back while health, education, public services and workers’ rights are attacked.

“Tony Abbott is taking Australia where Campbell Newman took Queensland – slashing public sector jobs, cutting

Continued Page 4

www.workinglife.org.auIssue 18, February 2015

Day of action turns up the heat on PM

by MARK PHILLIPS

United we stand: Young workers like Daniel Nicholson, Kate McKay and Josh Tait rely on penalty rates to compensate them for working unsociable hours. Now, penalty rates are under scrutiny by the Productivity Commission. FULL STORY: Pages 6-7

Workers ready to fight to protect their penalty ratesPhoto: Andrei Buters/ANMF

GED KEARNEY Page 4

As unions we will stand

together with all Australians to protect our

living standards.

“

“

IN November the ACTU launched the Our Living Standards, Our Voice survey, a massive information gathering exercise to help inform the union movement’s campaigning for the next few years.

The survey ran until mid-January. In total, 43,188 people – both members of unions and non-members – from all states and territories and across all industries took part.

Well, the results are now in and they tell us a lot about how people feel about the direction Australia is going, the challenges they face, and what they want done about them.

Here’s a snapshot of some of the key findings:

1. We want a change of government and we want it now!

Three-quarters (74%) of participants felt Australia was heading in the wrong direction. Asked about their current mood about government policies, 38% said they wanted a change of government ASAP. Ten per cent were angry while just 4% were indifferent.

2. Job insecurity and stress just seems to be a fact of life

Sixty-five per cent of those surveyed said they suffer from work-related stress, and 63% found it difficult to balance work and life. When it came to their income, 70% said they found it hard to get a decent pay rise, while 58% felt uncomfortable speaking up about their rights at work.

3. Only a quarter of us are living comfortably

We all know the cost of living never gets any easier, and 48% of survey respondents said they were only coping on their current household income, while 28% found it difficult/very difficult to get by. Just 2% are

doing really well. It is the cost of utilities, childcare and education which cause most anxiety around the kitchen table.

4. Time to pull out that old orange t-shirt from 2007

Seven years after the demise of WorkChoices, cuts to our rights at work remains among our top workplace concerns, with 94% saying they were worried/very worried about new laws arising from government inquiries, such as the Productivity Commission review. Ninety-two per cent were concerned about the Commission of Audit proposal

to reduce the minimum wage.

5. We’re no longer the land of the fair go

Less than a third (32%) of survey respondents agreed with the statement ‘Australia is still the land of the fair go’. By contrast, 92% said they worried about a growing number of working poor, like in the United States. Concerns about future generations not being able to afford university (92%) and not having access to good jobs (88%) were also top of mind, while 96% agreed that big corporations have too much influence over politics.

2 .org.au February 2015

GET IN TOUCHWant to know more or get involved? Contact our newsdesk by email at editor@workinglife.org.au or phone (03) 9664 7266. Or get in touch by Facebook (facebook.com/ThisWorkingLife) or Twitter (twitter/thisworkinglife).

Editor: Mark Phillips. Responsibility for election comment is taken by Dave Oliver, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, 365 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000. .org.au

We’re angry, insecure and want a change of government

At work

WHAT do you do when your employer threatens to lock you out of your workplace? Why, you lock yourself in, of course.

Early on the morning of 27 January, employees of multinational International Flavors & Fragrances arrived at work at their factory in the Melbourne industrial suburb of Dandenong South to be served with lock-out notices.

Management of the food flavouring manufacturer had moved to lock them out in retaliation at plans for low-level industrial action involving bans on paperwork that began that morning.

But when an opportunity arose, a group of about 30 workers who are members of the National Union of Workers stormed through the open gates and occupied the staff lunchroom.

They remained there until Friday afternoon – three nights – vowing to stick it out until management backed down on demands that the workers trade off several hard-won conditions in return for a sub-inflation pay rise.

Ultimately they were successful, securing a satisfactory pay rise with no significant trade-offs after negotiations over the weekend.

Conditions inside the canteen were far from luxurious, but the workers did have access to (cold) showers, toilets, and basic bedding materials.

They were supplied with food from workmates who maintained a vigil outside. The outside world was provided with regular updates through social media, using the Twitter hashtag #occupydandenong to spread the word.

“We’re determined to do this as long as it takes,” said Mark Hutchision, an employee for 18 years, on day three of the lock-in.

Outside, the factory, the resolve was just as strong among workers who arrived at the plant later in the day after the gates had again been locked shut and the premises secured.

“The support has been fantastic,” said Rachel Finlay, who comes from New Zealand where this type of industrial action is rare. “Every union you can think of has been down here to lend support – teachers, nurses, manufacturing workers.

“The workers next door are also members of the NUW and they have their own negotiations coming up in the next few months, and they have been coming over between shifts and saying ‘please dig in, we’re rooting for you because it will make our negotiations easier if our management sees your company back down’. The support just blows you away.”

Arthur Ingles, a senior delegate with the NUW, said negotiations for a new enterprise agreement began in September, but made little progress after management insisted it wanted workers to trade-off an entitlement to two 10-minute breaks each day, along with a provision to be paid out for any accrued personal leave when they left the company. Ingles said the demand to remove the 10-minute break entitlement effectively meant a 4% annual pay cut.

“This is not an attempt to deny the

company profitability,” he said. “What we’re wanting is a fair and reasonable return on our investment and our contribution to the company’s profitability and productivity.”

Ingles said workers had decided to adopt a more low-key strategy of industrial action this time compared to three years ago, when they withdrew their labour for several days. Bans on overtime and paper work kicked in from midnight on Monday, and the company lock-out was not unexpected.

The day shift had arrived at the plant at about 5.30am on Tuesday to find the lock-out notice attached to the front entrance, but had stormed into the property when the gates were opened to allow a maintenance fitter to enter.

The workers voluntarily ended their lunch room occupation on the Friday afternoon after senior management agreed to come back to the negotiating table.

From then onwards, things move quickly with resolution of the dispute and a new agreement announced on the Saturday afternoon.

3.org.au

The workers who turned a lock-out into a lock-in

At Work

February 2015

Defiant until the end: Senior delegate Arthur Ingles and workmates who locked themselves inside the IFF factory for three nights. Photo: ACTU/Mark Phillips

by MARK PHILLIPS

IF 2014 was the year when we got to see the full extent of the Abbott Government’s anti-worker ideology,

then 2015 will be the year our own alternative vision for Australia really takes shape.

Unions – and the community at large – spent most of the first 12 or so months of the Abbott Government successfully fighting back against the impact of their rampant attacks on our living standards.

The government couldn’t hike up Medicare fees, they couldn’t introduce their $100,000 university degrees and they couldn’t implement their punitive treatment of young jobseekers.

This year, we will be stepping up the fight.

It is now crystal clear that Tony Abbott wants to take us backwards, to force ordinary people to accept that they can no longer have the Australian way of life.

The 2014 Budget confirmed that Tony Abbott and the Coalition are no friends of working people and their families.

Low and middle-income earners were asked to bear an extra burden, while big business continued to avoid taxes, drive down wages and offshore jobs.

Families were slugged with extra costs of living, new holes were punched in the welfare safety net, and thousands of jobs destroyed to fund Joe Hockey’s self-created ‘Budget emergency’.

The Abbott Government’s prescription is a future for this nation built on insecure work, with people shunted through inappropriate training to unsustainable jobs until their bodies are broken at the age of 70, while hitting them with extra costs at every turn for healthcare and medicine, for education, and for petrol.

When Gough Whitlam died in October, we mourned not just a great man, but his legacy. In three short years, Gough Whitlam’s government changed this country, undoubtedly for the better.

Gough’s reforms have endured for four decades, and are now ingrained into our way of life. But is it any coincidence

that in 2014, the year that Gough passed away, we were defending them against the most concerted attack yet from a hostile government in Canberra?

The good news is that Australians are not taking this lying down.

Tens of thousands took to the streets in 2014 to make it known that Tony Abbott’s way is not the Australia they want to live in. The opinion polls tell us that the silent majority shares this disgust at being lied to this way and at being told they must do the heavy lifting.

This has given the union movement an opportunity to harness the momentum and provide leadership, as we have so often done, to campaign not only to protect our living standards, but to build a better Australia.

WE cannot let this opportunity slip. Because this Budget is just the

beginning. The Abbott Government also have

workers’ wages and conditions in their sights.

Day of action turns up the heat on PMContinued from Page 1

services and attacking rights at work,” Ms Kearney said on the morning after the election.

The 4 March day of action was announced in an email from ACTU Secretary Dave Oliver to members of the Australian Unions campaign network.

Venues and times for the nationwide protests, dubbed Fight for our Rights, are yet to be confirmed, but people can register online to attend.

“Our rights at work are again under attack from the Abbott Government and employers,” Mr Oliver said in his email message.

“Just last week it became even clearer that the full-scale Productivity Commission inquiry into our rights at work could deliver cuts to penalty rates, the abolition of the minimum wage, bring back unfair individual contracts and swing even more power to employers. The time to stand up and fight back is now.

“Let’s make it crystal clear to the Abbott Government and their big business supporters: we didn’t vote for these cuts and we won’t sit back while you attack our living standards,” Mr Oliver said.

As they did in the Victorian election in November, unions in Queensland played an instrumental role in targeted seats by highlighting LNP plans to sell public assets, cuts to essential services and the state’s decade-high jobless rate.

“Our campaign didn’t just start 26 days ago – it started in September 2012 when Newman and the LNP sacked 24,000 workers,” said Queensland Council of Unions PresidentJohn Battams.

“Since then unions have been talking with members across the state about what’s important to them.

“We have heard their concerns about the sale of public assets, the job cuts in health and training, the high jobless rate, the attacks on democracy and the fair go under the Newman LNP government.”

4 .org.au February 2015

National Day of Action

This is the fight that is ahead of us in 2015The union movement is ready to take the fight up to the Abbott Government, says ACTU President Ged Kearney.

TAKE ACTIONRegister for the day of action:australianunions.org.au/national_day_of_action

Greece’s new dawn gives hope to all workers

A WEEK before I arrived in Greece last year to visit my parents, my father had a stroke which meant the bulk of my time there was spent in hospital for his various medical appointments.

One morning, we waited nearly three hours to be seen by the doctor who apologised for the delay. There had been an accident involving six drunken English tourists on quad bikes. They had sustained serious injuries which required operations.

As soon as my father sat down, he asked the doctor if they had been paid yet. My parents live on a small island and it was common knowledge that the staff at the hospital hadn’t been paid in three months.

“No, we haven’t,” the doctor replied, shrugging. “But what can we do? People are sick.”

Labelled as lazy loafers by the conservative governments in Germany, Britain and other European countries and their cheer squads in the tabloid press, the Greeks have been told since 2008 when the GFC hit, that they have no-one but themselves to blame.

Yet, this doctor working in a struggling health system starved of funds from a government that is selling off public assets to pay back the banks, is treating people from other European countries because it’s his duty to so.

I have no idea who the doctor voted for in last week’s election, but I have a feeling it wasn’t for the right wing New Democracy.

Syriza won the election in Greece because people wanted an alternative to the neo-liberal program that has driven people to homelessness and hunger — something that hasn’t been experienced since the war.

The voters rejected the memorandums signed by successive governments since

2008 with the Troika (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the IMF) – effectively giving away their sovereignty so the economy could grow. Instead the Troika imposed austerity measures that slashed wages and pensions, increased taxes and sacked thousands of workers in the public sector while at the same time creating funds to save the banks.

A million people have lost their job, a third of businesses have closed, the child mortality rate has increased by 40% and the most distressing statistic is the rising suicide rate: nearly two people commit suicide every day.

Walking in Byron, the suburb in

Athens named after poet Lord Byron who fought in the Greek War of Independence, I saw the effects of these economic rationalist ‘reforms’ all around me. People look in rubbish bins for food, old men and women wheel their belongings on trolleys and sleep on the street.

Leading economic commentators such as Paul Krugman have condemned the measures in Greece. Even former Liberal leader John Hewson recently spoke out against continued austerity.

But working people in Greece don’t need Krugman or Hewson to tell them what they already know and live every

Continued Page 10

The vehicle for much of this will be a Productivity Commission inquiry into the Fair Work system.

In typical fashion, the government sneakily released the terms of reference for this review just days before Christmas, when most people’s attention was elsewhere.

Coalition MPs and business groups are openly campaigning to abolish penalty rates and cut the minimum wage.

They have written legislation to bring back AWAs under the guise of individual flexibility agreements. They want to outlaw legitimate industrial action and persecute building workers.

They are also using the current review of Modern Awards for an all-out assault on penalty rates in the retail and hospitality industries.

And they won’t rest until they have got rid of the union movement.

The royal commission is a central part of that plan to smear, distract and weaken

Continued Page 10

5.org.auFebruary 2015

This is the fight that is ahead of us in 2015National Day of Action

by JEANA VITHOULKAS

Syriza won because people wanted an alternative to the

neo-liberal program that has driven people to

homelessness and hunger

“

“

Workers have their say on penalty rates

FRESHMAN Victorian Senator Ricky Muir has harked back to his own tough working life in the timber industry as he came out in support of penalty rates for working on weekends, at night and on public holidays.

The battlelines have been drawn for what looks like a year-long fight to protect workers’ penalty rates.

The latest shot of this new skirmish was fired in the dying days of 2014, when just a few days before Christmas, the Abbott Government released the long-awaited terms of reference for a Productivity Commission inquiry into the workplace system.But employers in the retail and hospitality sectors have already been gearing up for months for a concerted assault on weekend rates in the current review of Modern Awards.

Senator Muir (pictured), who comes from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, was prompted by media reports in early-January to declare where his sympathies lie.

The usually media-shy Victorian Senator chose Facebook to show which side he is on when it comes to penalty rates. In his post on 4 January, he recalled his own working life of long and unsociable hours and “the sore back, splinters and bruises” in the timber industry to put food on his family’s table.

“Most of my working life has been spent working shift work going home with just enough money to keep up with

the cost of living,” Senator Muir wrote.“I did not miss out on eating with my

family, kissing my kids good night, my children’s Christmas concerts or work a Saturday missing out on a trip to the beach on a hot day that the kids have been nagging about just for the love of my job. I did it to simply keep up with the ever increasing cost of living and to try to get ahead and to save to enjoy a few treats from time to time.

“I constantly hear similar stories. People working hard, long or out of the ordinary hours and sacrificing their leisure time to keep ahead rather than fall behind.

Without the incentive of penalty rates, or a reduction of your current penalty rates, would you be inclined to work weekends, late at night, early in the morning or beyond your ordinary hours of work?”

Senator Muir also touched on the economic argument in defence of

penalty rates: that the money earned by low-paid workers goes back into the local economy as consumer spending and helps keep small businesses going.

“Do you own a small business, perhaps a coffee

shop, fish and chip shop, a small retail or toy shop in a rural area?” he asked. “Do you think there is a chance that if penalty rates are tightened it could affect your business as customers tighten up their budgets?”

While some other cross-bench Senators – including Nick Xenophon and Bob Day – have called for cuts to penalty rates, the weight of public opinion is strongly on the side of their protection.

A recent Essential Poll showed that public support for penalty rates remained unchanged with more than eight out of 10 people are in favour of them.

At Work

6 .org.au February 2015

THE Productivity Commission has put the minimum wage at the centre of its review of Australia’s workplace laws and protections to run this year.

Business groups will push their well-re-hearsed agenda. The minimum wage costs jobs, they say.

Just think, if employers could pay workers less there could be so many more jobs. Minimum wage workers could have

What’s wrong with the minimum wage? (hint: it’s not that it costs jobs)

New Senator joins the fight to protect penalty rates

by MARK PHILLIPS

Workers have their say on penalty rates

two or three or four jobs to pay the bills – lucky them!

The 3 February weekly Essential Re-port shows voters agree there’s a prob-lem with the minimum wage: IT’S TOO LOW.

A strong majority – 61% of voters across Australia – think the minimum wage is too low. A quarter of voters think our $16.37 per hour minimum wage is

much too low.Even Liberal voters are significantly

more inclined to believe the minimum wage is too low rather than too high and support for a higher minimum wage was consistent across all income groups.

Twenty-seven per cent think the mini-mum wage is about right, while only 6% of voters believe the minimum wage is too high (despite the best efforts of The

Australian).The Abbott Government has set up the

Productivity Commission review to give cover to its plans to attack work rights and protections at the next election.

These figures suggest any attempt to undermine the minimum wage will be rejected by the public as firmly out of step with Australian values.

- JACKIE WOODS

7.org.auFebruary 2015

At Work

Wages and penalty rates in review’s sights

What’s wrong with the minimum wage? (hint: it’s not that it costs jobs)

AUSTRALIA’S minimum wage – the floor for our high living standards – is set to go on trial in a Productivity Commission review of working conditions.

The inquiry set up by the Abbott Government will also look into whether penalty rates should be a choice for employers whether or not to pay them to worker, rather than determined by awards, as currently exists.

Questions around the minimum wage will be widely canvassed including how it should be set, whether it should vary by state or be replaced by tax credits.

Deregulation of penalty rates is up for discussion, including allowing weekend and evening rates to be determined by the market or traded for time in lieu.

The inquiry is expected to provide the blueprint for the Coalition’s workplace policy for the next election.

Despite government ministers repeatedly ruling out a return to WorkChoices, reports suggest that nearly every protection and entitlement Australians enjoy in the workplace will be examined, including award coverage, conditions allowable under enterprise agreements, unions’ role in the workplace and unfair dismissal protections.

In a sign of the stance to be taken by big business, the free-market lobby group, the Institute of Public Affairs, was straight out of the blocks calling for the minimum

wage to be abolished. “A Productivity Commission investi-

gation of the harm caused by the minimum wage will hopefully be the first step towards its eventual abolition,” said Dr Mikayla Novak, senior research fellow at the IPA. Other employer groups also welcomed confirmation that the inquiry will look at wages and penalty rates.

Unions have vowed to use the inquiry to make the strong case for significant improvement to Australians’ rights at work, to boost minimum and award wages and reduce poverty and inequality.

“Unions will oppose any move to cut wages,” said ACTU President Ged Kearney. “Six years on from the global financial crisis and both the US and Germany are seeking to increase their minimum wage.

“But since coming to office the Abbott Government has been focussed on cutting the living standards of all Australians, whether through the GP co-payment or higher university fees. This inquiry looks like more of the same.”

Next up is six weeks of consultation with submissions from organisations and individuals open until March 13.

The Productivity Commission will report to the Federal Government in November, with its findings expected to fuel the Liberals’ workplace relations agenda for the next federal election.

Crucial trade talks resume under a shroud of secrecy

World News

8 .org.au February 2015

by PATRICIA RANALDConvenor of AFTINET

No deal with Uncle Sam: Protesters at a TPP rally in Sydney last year.

AS secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks resumed in New York in late-January, there were growing calls for the release of the text for public scrutiny amid mounting evidence that the trade deal is not in national interest.

Concerns have been raised that the agreement could delay access to cheaper generic medicines, undermine domestic workplace laws and drive a race to the bottom on living standards, and weaken environmental protections.

The European Union has responded to community pressure and announced that it will publish the full text of the Trans-Atlantic trade deal (TTIP) between the EU and the US before it is signed.

A diverse mix of Australian community groups including unions, public health, environment, church and development aid organisations, have written to Trade Minister Andrew Robb to do the same with the TPP.

The TPP is a trade agreement being negotiated between Australia, the US, Japan and nine other Pacific Rim countries.

Although the negotiations are secret, we know from leaked documents and industry reports that pharmaceutical companies want increased delays before we can access cheaper generic medicines, media companies want longer copyright payments and restrictions on the Internet and tobacco companies want to prevent stronger public health labeling.

They all want the right to sue governments for damages in international tribunals if a change in law or policy can be claimed to harm their investment, known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). These cases are growing in number, and include the French company Veolia suing Egypt over a rise in the minimum wage.

These proposals are not about free trade but about increased monopoly rights which

undermine democracy and could prevent future governments from regulating to protect public health, the environment and workers’ rights.

The Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network of 60 unions and community groups and many more individuals campaigns against proposals in the TPP and other trade agreements which would increase the monopoly rights of international corporations and reduce people’s rights.

Our campaigning has made a difference.The TPP negotiations have missed

several deadlines and entered their fifth year because social movements in Australia and other TPP countries, including the US have pressured governments to resist US proposals on medicines, copyright and investor rights to sue governments over domestic legislation.

The danger is that the Coalition government will trade off their rights to regulate in return for dubious promises of access to US and Japanese markets.

AFTINET has campaigned strongly against ISDS, in the TPP, and also in the free trade agreements with South Korea and China.

Australian and China started negotiating a free trade agreement in 2005. On 17 November last year, they announced they had reached agreement in principle on key issues and would finalise and sign the text early this year. The text will remain secret until after Cabinet approves it for signing, and cannot be changed by Parliament, which will only vote on the implementing legislation.

There has been much breathless publicity about access to Chinese markets for Australian agriculture and services. But the government’s summary shows that it has allowed more temporary labour for projects worth more than $150 million and has agreed to ISDS.

Union and industry groups are concerned about the impact of the agreement on local employment. AFTINET also opposes allowing Chinese companies to sue our governments over domestic legislation.

We want the full text of the agreement to be released before it is signed so there can be public and parliamentary debate.

TAKE ACTIONTell Australia’s Trade Minister to say no to TPP demands in 2015:www.aftinet.org.au

WITH all the recent controversy about industry super funds, it would be easy to forget that

superannuation has been embedded in Australia’s industrial landscape since long before Keating’s introduction of the Superannuation Guarantee in 1992.

Prior to Keating, superannuation was guaranteed for some workers: those workers who had a trade union active in their workplace to negotiate a collective entitlement to superannuation.

In 1992, in response to the ageing population and submissions by the ACTU, the Keating Government mandated superannuation contributions by employers. This provided an important, and universal, savings mechanism for workers and the economy in the face of the anticipated strain on the aged pension scheme.

At the time it was introduced, there was widespread criticism and fear mongering by big business and their representatives. Trade unions on the other hand, who had been involved in superannuation for some decades, argued it was a win for workers and the economy.

Superannuation funds generally fall into two categories: industry funds, established and operated by trade unions and employers together, and retail funds established and operated by financial institutions.

A key difference between industry funds and retail funds is the direction of the profits. Industry funds are not-for-profit organisations that exist solely for the benefit of their members as opposed to shareholders. On the contrary, retail funds have shareholders to whom they answer and direct the profits.

More often than not, industry funds perform better than retail funds and represent a more beneficial option to employees. Industry funds have, on average, outperformed retail funds for at least 10 years.

Despite this, industry funds have been

caught in the crosshairs of an ideological war against trade unions.

First, in 2006, WorkChoices outlawed the inclusion of clauses relating to superannuation in industrial awards. This allowed for more employers to nominate retail funds as their default fund, which has often resulted in employees being members of retail super funds, regardless of the fact that they may be better served by an industry fund.

When the Fair Work Act was introduced, it removed the prohibition of superannuation clauses in industrial awards. Subsequently, the 2010 industry award modernisation process represented a big win for industry super funds and workers: now awards specify the super funds that an employer can choose from to nominate as their company’s default fund. None of the default funds are retail funds.

However, industry funds have recently found themselves the focus of the royal commission into trade unions.

The royal commission was established to uncover alleged widespread trade union corruption and governance issues and its terms of reference did not specifically include industry funds. Despite this, the royal commission has attacked industry funds and made claims that industry funds are controlled by trade unions and harbour a “corrupt culture”.

These attacks have gained political momentum.

Employer associations, such as the Australian Industry Group, are campaigning for regulatory changes to limit the ability for companies, their employees and trade unions to negotiate agreements providing for compulsory contributions to superior performing industry funds.

This backflip on their usual calls for less regulation and more freedom to negotiate is a very transparent shot at trade unions, and the organisations with which they associate.

Furthermore, AIG is pushing for significant increases to the governance requirements of industry funds (though there is no push for similar increases to the governance of retail funds).

These measures combined would, according to AIG and its supporters, cure the alleged corrupt culture and ensure employers are not “coerced” into contributing to “union-backed” industry funds.

To add fuel to the fire, Josh Frydenberg, the new Assistant Treasurer, has said that he feels the current system “leaves retail funds and small industry funds at a disadvantage” and has insisted that default funds be opened up to include all MySuper products.

Continued next page

9.org.auFebruary 2015

by GIRI SIVARAMANand ALANA HEFFERNAN

Industry superannuation caught in political crossfire

Politics

Greece’s new dawn gives hope to all workersContinued from Page 7

day: that the Troika’s antidote has devastated the social fabric of Greek society. Despite the depression caused by the austerity measures, people stood up and fought.

This is best exemplified by the sacked 595 women public sector cleaners who for 12 months waged a campaign against the previous government and the Troika against the cutting of their already low wages and the privatisation of their jobs. Their salaries – which were 500 euros a month (A$733.41) were reduced to 2 euro an hour (A$2.93) under privatisation.

After the election of Syriza, the finance minister – a former economics academic from Sydney University, Yannis Varoufakis personally delivered the message that the workers would be reinstated.

The election of Syriza has ignited hope all over Europe, precisely because the program of slashing public spending, privatisation and the decimation of the health and education sectors has not delivered the promised benefits that the market is supposed to deliver. It has led to unemployment, lower wages and rising costs, all while big business grow their profits and the disparity between those at the top and the middle and working classes is at historic levels.

For all the talk about how far left and radical Syriza are, they were elected because they want a society where there is equality of opportunity, a fair tax regime, secure work, a universal health and education system, proactive measures to

fight climate change and the reinstatement workers’ rights.

One of their first acts after their election was to raise the minimum wage and restore the right for unions and workers to negotiate collective agreements.

They have put a halt to the privatisation of the ports and the plans to sell the public power corporation. This is why unions and progressive parties from around the world – who have been fighting the same battles on their own turf, including Australia – are buoyed by the election of Syriza and have expressed their support.

Conservative commentators around the world have demanded the Greeks be ‘sensible’. The only sensible thing to do is to stand with Syriza and the Greek people who – like the rest of us – want a fair go.

Jeana Vithoulkas is the Communications and Public Affairs Adviser for the CFMEU construction division. She has written widely on social and political issues and has been published in the Greek and Australian press.

Victory: Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras

.org.au February 201510Industry super caught in political crossfireContinued from previous page

Through these attacks, some very important facts are being forgotten: (a) industry funds are non-profit and exist for the benefit of their members as opposed to shareholders; (b) the joint governance of industry funds is a great example of employers and trade unions working together; (c) if it weren’t for the trade union movement, employees and the economy would not have the benefit of compulsory superannuation; (d) for at least the last 10 years, industry funds have , on average, outperformed retail

funds.None of the attacks on industry funds

appear to relate to the benefits received by the funds’ members: there have been no findings that members of industry funds are disadvantaged, especially when compared to their retail fund counterparts, and in fact, there couldn’t be.

Nevertheless, the attack on industry super has come at a very convenient time for the large financial institutions. The finance sector is likely to use this opportunity to continue its push for modern awards to include retail funds, mostly owned by banks, in their lists of default funds.

If the employer associations and financial institutions get their way, the

management of industry funds will be debilitated by onerous and incomparable governance requirements, while banks reap the rewards of again being default super funds. It will not only benefit the big banks, but also those invested in the ideological war against trade unions.

The only people who don’t appear to benefit from these changes are employees, who are supposed to be the benefactors of the superannuation system and to whom only industry funds are answerable.

Giri Sivaraman is a Principal and Alana Heffernan a lawyer in Maurice Blackburn’s employment and industrial law team.

Read a longer version of this story:workinglife.org.au

This is the fight that is ahead of us in 2015Continued from Page 4

unions. Because it is unions who stand between them and the realisation of their cruel agenda.

But I’ve got news for Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Eric Abetz. We aren’t going anywhere.

As unions, we will stand together with all Australians to defend our living standards.

Unions played a decisive role in the defeat of the Coalition Government in Victoria last November, and I expect they will be influential in campaigning for working people in the state elections to be held this year.

And who knows, perhaps later this year there may even be a federal election. But we cannot wait for an election to come along – there is much work to get on with now.

As I reflect on the proud history of our movement, and the role it has played in shaping our society, it occurs to me that nothing has ever been achieved without a fight.

Nothing has ever been handed to working people on a platter.

It has had to be fought for, by using the collective strength of people united in unions to take on the powerful institutions in our society: Parliament, big business, the law, and the media.

And the fight does not stop with victory.

Ask Us

11.org.auFebruary 2015

GOT A PROBLEM AT WORK?

You’ve come to the right place. Share your workplace issues with our other readers and get free advice from the Australian Unions helpline if you have a problem with your pay, entitlements, health and safety or anything else at work.

Phone 1300 4 UNION (1300 486 466).

How can I recognise if I am being employed as a sham contractor?

There is something very smelly about this worker’s situationEVA asks: I am a cleaner and we clean toilets and showers. In the spare toilet block we keep chemicals and cleaning equipment and there is toilet water leaking all over that has a horrible odour to it. This water lies around for days, sometimes weeks, and we have to walk through it to get to the cleaning products and mops. I’m really worried about health issues and possibly contracting something. I have made complaints to management but they will not listen.

Good on you for trying to alert your management. Apart from being really unpleasant, this situation raises all sorts of health and safety concerns.

It’s simply not good enough that your management doesn’t listen to your concerns. They have a duty of care towards their staff which means they are bound by law to make sure the workplace is as safe as it possibly can

be for you all and that staff aren’t exposed to unnecessary risk or danger.

It also makes me wonder in what other ways they’re failing to look after you all. Do they give you rubber gloves? A place to wash your hands with soap, hot water and clean towels? Are you provided with non-slip boots if you’re working in wet areas? I’d lay money on the answer to all of those questions being “No”.

Are any of you members of a union? If so give them a call immediately. If not, I strongly encourage you to give our Australian Unions line a call on 1300 486 466. Our organisers can discuss with you strategies such as electing an OHS representative to go to management with these concerns (OHS reps have certain rights and protections under law).

Have you spoken to the workplace safety agency? When you contact us we can give you the number for the agency in your state.

by RIGHTS WATCH

Beware of the perceived benefits of ‘independent’ contracting as you may well be ripped off on a range of entitlements.

LIAM asks: I’ve been doing the same work for about 10 years. In 2010 someone bought the business and told me I’d have to get an ABN. He said I would be self-employed. I did this because I needed to keep my job. That’s the only thing that’s changed though I still work about 35 hours a week and my pay’s the same. My mate told me I was being ripped off but my wages haven’t dropped.

Your wages might not have dropped in the sense of the hourly rate you’re paid, but if you think about what your boss is saving in hiring you as a sub-contractor you’re definitely missing out.

Saving number one is they don’t have to pay you sick pay, holiday pay (or a loading if they call you in irregularly).

Saving number two is they are no longer paying your superannuation. Employers have to pay a superannuation contribution of 9.5% of an employee’s ordinary time earnings.This is increasing over seven years to 12% by 2019.

So let’s say you work 35 hours a week and for argument’s sake you’re a level 1 gardener/landscaper. The minimum adult wage under the Gardening and Landscaping Service Award is $17.35 an hour.

As an employee you’d earn $607.25 per week before tax. The superannuation your boss would have to pay on that (at 9.5%) is $57.68. Bear in mind this is paid on top of your earnings.

Now let’s multiply that by 52 weeks in a year: $2999. You say you’ve been working as if you’re self-employed for five years. Therefore he or she have saved about $15,000 in superannuation.

That’s $15,000 which could be earning you interest in a super fund. So in reality your wages have dropped because you’re not receiving this money. And that’s not factoring in unpaid sick leave, holidays, or any penalty rates or loadings.

Working for yourself can be a great thing; you can work when you want, where you want. You have control of your working life. Increasingly though we hear of people like yourself who are employees but with none of the benefits.

You have no say over when, how or where you work. You follow company policy and work as directed – but you have to pay your own superannuating and very often buy your own tools and other resources.

It’s called sham contracting and it’s unlawful.If you think you have in fact been hired under

a sham contracting arrangement why don’t you give our advice line a call on 1300 486 466?