Hah, hah
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Saturday, May 19, 2007
The email hit my computer at 10.54 pm Wednesday night. I don’t always click through to the ACTU’s messages. This one said “Urgent help needed: show Mr Howard fairness is no laughing matter”. What’s this? Turned out, the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the opinion polls could be “an interesting exercise by the Australian public in its innate sense of humour” got up the noses of the union bosses. They were asking for $30,000 to reply in adverts. The clock showed they had $250. Long way to go.
Wondering if donations might be a measure on WorkChoices, I checked back a minute ago. “We have reached out target of $30,000″ the message said. How easy was that? I don’t know when the ACTU made its mark. Perhaps yesterday, or even within a couple of hours. At most, it took two days. Perhaps others know more about donation rates, scales, etc and can better assess whether this is a relatively good outcome or not. Whatever, I’d like to run a campaign that could pull $30,000 from the public within 48 hours by hitting an email list.
How important was the general issue, as distinct from the hook in this case? The hook, I surmise, was the key. There are few things more annoying to angry people trying to make a serious point than having their case being treated as a joke. Of course, blogosphere readers know this only too well, this sort of behaviour being a hackneyed cliche in this medium. But a PM behaving like an RWDB in public is not, I suspect, a wise career move.
ShareThis
This entry was posted on Saturday, May 19th, 2007 at 12:24 AM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
I don’t get the point, what’s you preferred position in all this,CS, would you like to see the tail end of this government? Is that what you are really hoping?
Posted on 19-May-07 at 1:44 am | PermalinkFair points, Chris, that it appears a considerable sum was raised so quickly on the back of a Government policy - to fight it. Interesting in itself. Do you think it was money from the converted? Does it represent only that localised passion?
Good commentary from Rod Cameron via Ramsey, and Shaun Carney on the WorkChoices issue. I understand you’re big on this issue, and take your points and no one can yet call against what you’ve been saying, yet I think Cameron has called the issue well, and my views would be in agreement there.
However, here’s a thought, which stems in part from Cameron’s comments, which is that there is a new space to be made from the so-called ‘union’ problem, a problem voters are supposed to have with unions, and which may or may not be as dire as often remarked, but needs addressing nonetheless.
The new creation could be where Rudd takes what the unions have created historically, ie, the good things, and turns it into a rebranded, fresh, revitalised concept for voter consumption (that being the language of the day, and it has to be spoken).
It goes something like this. The Libs have branded individualism as a political reality - they’ve made it a hardwired concept in peoples’ minds, and they’ve made it their own. It’s been central to their constitution, but Howard’s Govt has got it up. Labor’s similar branding has been in the past: compassion, collectivism, and ‘workers’, for the sake of this comment.
The latter - ‘workers’ - now is situated to be rebranded again, politically. Howard freed the means by which it can.
Cameron speaks about Labor’s branding of ‘workers’ as synonymous with unions. That’s Rudd’s opportunity right there - to shift the public mind away from that branding and onto something he establishes, of a new order. It’s only branding, there’s no essential change other than to solidify perceptions, make them reality, as Howard did with individualism.
So what we have currently is Howard’s established individualism, with its attendant me-now-me-benefit winning hook. Rudd can take that, and take the good things the unions have created (collectivism), and shift it into a branding of his own.
All he has to do is name it, demonstrate it stands for individualism and non-union collectivism, and that’s his platform on IR.
So, yes, he has to stand up to the unions - and he can’t do so without reframing that public conversation. By claiming his own brand as mentioned, he forces the unions to face public response, not his. And, yes, he has to stand for what Howard has successfully created.
This branding may only be seen as a word - a term he uses to define that position, a position the public I believe would respond to warmly - yet it is more than that. It’s claiming, making solid, reflecting, where the greater public are at - and giving it a name and demonstrating its position.
Are you with me? It’s an incredible opportunity. Time and Howard and the unions have all contributed to this new place which lives already, and can now be claimed and named. It’s the space between individualism and unions, in the workplace, where many people already live. It can be claimed and named now, unlike before, because individualism has been cemented, where before it wasn’t. Unionism already was. Each of those have negatives now, and so the new brand is ripe for the taking.
I say again the big winner for Rudd is the unions take on the public with the concept, rather than Labor. And there seems to be sufficient bite now against individualism (climate change being addressed is a collective need), too.
It also goes a long way to rebrand Labor - the very thing the country has waited for.
Just a thought, and wondering if it’s of the times as remarked.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:07 am | Permalinkps, the point about the unions having to take on the public surmises that the unions won’t, because the public are not pro union but would be pro the Rudd concept, and therefore publicly back Rudd, giving him the negotiating power with the unions to secure the brand.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:12 am | PermalinkWhich reminds me. Rod Cameron was in the paper the other day and in Alan Ramsay’s column (can you call it a column when it’s always just long transcripts of what other people say?) today about how people hate/distrust unions.
Where might I find recent polling results/data/research on this topic?
Posted on 19-May-07 at 1:49 pm | PermalinkGood commentary from Rod Cameron via Ramsey, and Shaun Carney on the WorkChoices issue. I understand you’re big on this issue, and take your points and no one can yet call against what you’ve been saying, yet I think Cameron has called the issue well, and my views would be in agreement there.
Robert, I also have a lot of time for Cameron, and think of him as one of Labor’s wise heads. Yet I don’t think he is right about trade unions and would like him to produce some evidence, sometime. My suspicion is that he is like, say, Rod Cavalier, coming into the ALP through a university-type experience carrying a middle class prejudice that he cannot let go.
Likewise, I think it borderline stupid for commentators to note the decline in union membership and equate this to people’s attitudes. Apart from opinion polls that show unions are still thought of favourably by about half the population - which is around the same historical support that organised labour has always enjoyed - there are many other factors to be taken into account.
On the one side, a significant number of workers have had their union membership bought out, notably in the mining industry. This is no discredit to unionism. On the contrary, it is a compliment. In theory, the ultimate ideal result for trade unions is to work themselves out of existence by having their values incorporated by employers and within society generally.
On the other side, there have been many tendencies at play. The increase in part-time and casual work dampens union membership as these workers tend to have a more ephemeral attachment to their occupations and are both less inclined and able to afford to invest in their union. Likewise, the increasing number of ‘home-based’ workers and other sorts of workplace fragmenting arrangements has also tended to dissolve the collective working experience upon which union organisation is based.
The third factor lies in between these two, which is a militant campaign by employers and the government to positively extinguish unionism by intimidating workers into not joining. There has always been this tendency in Australia, and it is now almost forgotten that the introduction of preference clauses (as distinct from compulsion clauses) for union members was always on the condition that all other merit factors were equal. The original reason for preference clauses was to counter-balance employer prejudice and intimidation - not to advantage unions. The stripping away of preference clauses has tilted the playing field back to employers.
Finally, plainly on the evidence, general trade union bodies always speak and usually campaign for the interests of workers at large, not only their specific members. Many folks, regardless of their own employment arrangements, appreciate the union presence in society from this perspective.
In other words, the suggestion that union support is limited to the 20 per cent of workers who are members is analagous to concluding that support for religion in society is limited to the number who attend church every week. Which is to say that such statements are wrong, and in this case I think Rod Cameron is wrong.
Personally, I would prefer it that Rudd stood “up for” unions, not stood “up to” unions. Outside the pages of News Limited, the weak prejudice of middle class bloggers and the extreme prejudice of RWDB bloggers, my suspicion is that this would be popular. But then again, I’m a Steve Earl, Bruce Springsteen, Lucinda Williams, Bob Dylan, rugby forward kinda guy.
That said, I also think there is something in what you say. Moreover, Kevin Rudd is deep in opposition territory - the ‘other’ 50 per cent, and he wants to stay there as long as possible. And yes, collective action is essential for individuality and self-determination, if it is to be enjoyed by more than a small minority. There are many individuals who have not been able to achieve substantive equal rights, notably those who still suffer prejudice by virtue of colour and gender and poverty, and collective action is of course a no-brainer with respect to the environment.
Further, despite the rhetoric, the intrusion of individual contracts and ’self-employed’ contractors is in significant part superficial, these arrangements merely being superimposed on continuing common habits of association between workers on the job, which is the collective basis of union organisation.
So yes, I think that there is promise in Labor identifying, not necessarily with the superficial structures that lie on top of the collective experience of most workers’ lives, but with the more durable collective experience itself that makes their individualism possible.
[JC, if you don't understand, I'd be delighted if you wouldn't comment. And if you must comment, please skip the questions pal. I'm not up for Q&A. Find someone who cares.]
Posted on 19-May-07 at 2:10 pm | PermalinkActually CS
You don’t set the rules of commenting. The owner of the site does. It was a joke which you seem unable to understand.
I will comment whenever I feel like doing so provided of course that I stay within the limits of the rules and comments policy. So please don’t ever say that to me or anyone else here.
It’s not your site- Ken owns it. If he thinks I shouldn’t comment ,let him tell me and I’ll repsect his wishes. But don’t dare think you can bully me.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 2:31 pm | Permalinkeek I agree with CS.
Contractors is complete cobblers.
Most want to be the full-time employees they were previously but were flickpassed.
They now have all the problems of being sole traders or companies.
I have lost East West. Help!!!!1
Posted on 19-May-07 at 2:31 pm | PermalinkI don’t pretend to own the site JC. I just don’t like you and wish you would go away. I wanted to make this clear, in case you mistook me for someone who cared what you think. Certainty is usually welcomed by businessmen.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 2:36 pm | PermalinkCS, that isn’t nice and has a somewhat arrogant touch to it.
You appear to be saying you will only reply to people you wish to reply to
Posted on 19-May-07 at 2:56 pm | PermalinkSorry if it sounded arrogant, Homer, but sometimes I can’t tell if people are under some unfortunate misapprehension, and your second point is 100 per cent correct. No East-West eh? Next time I play mine, I’ll think of you. Heh!
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:00 pm | PermalinkCS
As I said CS, it’s not your site so don’t round pretending it is. Ken worked hard at making it a success, not you… and he set the comments policy. If I abide by his comments policy I like everyone else shouldn’t have a problem.
I suggest you go read it or ask him what he thinks about offending people.
I don’t really care if you like me or not. I am a confirmed hetro and would certainly rebuff advances… especially from you, Mr Precious.. You’re not my cup of tea even if you were wearing a skirt.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:09 pm | PermalinkIf you would both (cs and JC) kindly settle down and get back on topic, that would be smashing.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:15 pm | PermalinkThis could be progress. There are millions of blogs out there, and even more millions of threads. I’ll very happily agree to ignore all your comments, and you can happily agree to stay off all my threads, and then we’ll both be happy. Deal?
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:15 pm | PermalinkSorry Jacques, that last one beat you to the censure. I just need some JC Mortein. This is my last comment. Cheers.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:19 pm | PermalinkI’m not censuring things, I’d just like things not to get out of hand.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:21 pm | PermalinkJust wanted to say thanks Chris for your comment - very informative and appreciated.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 3:48 pm | PermalinkNot really CS, I like commenting on your threads, they’re intelligently written, extremely informative and show an incite that I wouldn’t have believed possible.
I recall you were trying that caper at LP by having Homer banned because he said something you didn’t like despite abiding with the policy.
Be careful spraying the mortein though as it kills insects.
So no, thanks but I will continue to comment if I choose and abide by the comments policy.
Thanks for the advice though.
Sorry Jacques. Last one.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 4:11 pm | PermalinkAn excellent summary by cs of the problems faced by unions in maintaining membership and why plummeting rates do not crudely translate into workers’ rejection of trade unionism per se.
Some unions today still maintain close to 100 per cent industrial coverage, e.g, among miners, public sector teachers, nurses, and some manufacturing sector workers. The reasons for this lie with the greater effectiveness and reliability of these unions in supporting members’ industrially, legally and in many practical ways on the job in industries where the non-existence of unions would mean severe levels of exploitation and which are comparatively easy to organise for a variety of reasons. Workers in these industries still expect their union will be there for them when they need them and that need is still met to a greater degree than in areas where unionism has fallen off for the reasons cs outlined.
I would add another reason for decreased unionisation in recent decades. And that it is an outcome that was and still is being deliberately engineered by government and-employer organisations’ collusion through wages, industry, employment policies all of which have seriously undermined the ability of unions to be effective defensive organisations. Even when under serious attack many workers will take no defensive collective action even when a union is making a pretence of it, because workers have lost hope in the ability of the union, of their collective selves, to make a difference. This outcome was devoutly wished for by neo-liberalism and it has been hugely successful. But no point in pretending it has anything to do with democracy.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 4:49 pm | PermalinkAnyone who’s been around the OzSphere any reasonable length of time knows full well the stance CS takes. Well written, as always, Chris. Can’t say I share your view of Doug Cameron, but then this is a free speech blog, apparently
Posted on 19-May-07 at 6:35 pm | PermalinkPaul Kelly himself wrote the Oz article quoting Rod Cameron, perhaps Barrie Cassidy will ask about the evidence tomorrow morning and the insiders will get to the bottom of it through rigorous analysis of the best empirical data. Hah, hah.
Posted on 19-May-07 at 6:46 pm | Permalink