www.workinglife.org.auIssue 1, 12-26 August 2013

Billion dollar threatto the economy

Business push to axe penalty rates poses...

AUSTRALIAN voters are not buying the line from employers that cutting or abolishing pen-alty rates would create jobs.

That’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from new polling that shows not only does there continue to be overwhelming support for pen-alty rates, but most people fear the employer campaign to get rid of them would damage the economy.

The polling was release as ACTU President Ged Kearney told the National Press Club on 7 August that abolishing penalty rates will be the big ticket item for employers if the Coalition is elected next month. She said cutting penalty rates would strip billions of dollars out of the economy by cutting workers’ incomes.

In a major, nationally-televised speech, Ms Kearney outlined what is at stake for Australi-

an workers this election, including penalty rates and award conditions, the return of individual contracts, a raft of changes to swing power back to employers, and making it harder for workers to be represented by a union.

And the Liberal Treasurer in Victoria has let the cat out of the bag that the Coalition’s chang-es to workplace protections if it won the elec-tion would go far beyond what it has publicly revealed.

The polling conducted by Essential Research for the ACTU shows that eight-in-10 Australians support higher pay rates for people who work outside normal hours on night shifts, weekends or public holidays. Only 13% were opposed.

Business claims that cutting penalties rates would save jobs were rejected three-to-one, with

Continued on page 4

The vast majority of voters believe that abolishing or cutting penalty rates would be bad for the economy

by MARK PHILLIPS

Phot

o: G

rant

Hob

son

2 .org.au

WELCOME to the first print edition of Working Life.

Working Life was launched as a website in March to bring you human stories, vigorous comment, and eye-opening opinion from the world of work.

It exists for the large number of Australi-ans who share the basic values that underpin the Australian union movement: fairness, equality and job security.

It seeks to reach a broad audience by al-ways being thought-provoking, entertaining, and sometimes even amusing.

This print edition captures some of the highlights from the website over the past few weeks.

Through Working Life, we will give you daily stories and views about the things that matter in our working lives, and give you the opportunity to join in that discussion.

You’ll also find out about the current issues and campaigns of the Australian union movement. When it comes to coverage around the world of work, too often you only hear one side of the story.

But that wasn’t always the case. At the start of the twentieth century, newspapers and magazines owned and published by unions took their place on newsstands along-side those owned by the big end of town.

Along with high-profile columnists and bloggers, Working Life brings you the best of all the amazing, untold stories from the shop-floor or coal-face, that happen every single day throughout this country.

Working Life is supported and published by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which represents almost 2 million working people and their families. Working Life is not affiliated with any political party.

In the great tradition of the Australian union movement, Working Life belongs to all working Australians.

We hope that by providing you with relevant and interesting stories, views and information, you will be empowered to join our campaigns to make Australian jobs bet-ter for all working Australians.

Mark Phillips, Editor

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/This-WorkingLife) or Twitter (twitter/thisworking-life).

Editor: Mark Phillips

Responsibility for elec-tion comment is taken by Dave Oliver, Secre-tary of the Australian Council of Trade Un-ions, 365 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000.

.org.au

Do you live to work, or work to live?

Election calls and media warsTalking Points

WITH the election finally being called, both parties are busy touring the country and talking to people about the issues that matter most to them. With debates and an array of announce-ments sure to come, this week the focus has turned to the last bastion of voting demograph-ics – young people.

The AEC is launching multiple campaigns in an attempt to increase enrolment, spruiking at Splendour in the Grass and using Young Australian of the year Akram Azimi for a series of ads targeted at young people. Many aren’t buying it though. With enrolment at a low and disillusionment at a high, it will be interest-ing to see the part Gen Y play in the next few weeks, and the way policies are angled. Issues such as penalty rates will be key.

DENIED GINAThe months-old saga between Gina Rinehart and West Australian journalists finally got its conclusion this month, with the Supreme Court ruling that the journalists and their newspaper do not have to reveal their sources.

The win has been hailed as a victory for jour-nalism, and a good precedent for any similar incidents in the future.

MEDIA WARSThe Rinehart story wasn’t the only thing going on in the media, as Rupert Murdoch and Kevin Rudd have gone toe to toe in the media.

Murdoch questioned the ability of the gov-ernment to pay for the NBN rollout, and has in essence come out espousing his belief that Tony Abbott will win the election.

One has to question where all this is coming from, especially when you consider the abso-lutely appalling journalistic standards applied to the front page of Sydney’s Daily Telegraph this week, with blatant swipes at the govern-ment with little tact or intelligence.

It seems to be an interesting time for media owners in general, with newspapers being sold in the US during the week too.

Boston Red Sox owner John Henry, already with multiple worldwide sporting interests, is in a deal to purchase the Boston Globe for US$70, while Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has bought the Washington Post for US$250 million.

While some bemoan corporate interests, many journalists are glad there’s just an in-vestor out there willing to put money into the media and invest in its future.

by DAVID PIEPERS

Catch up with the Week In Review

column on the website on Friday

mornings, and join the discussion on

Today’s Talking Point every weekday

YOUNGER retail workers have taken a stand for fair pay, putting the case for full adult wages for 20-year-olds to the Fair Work Commission.

Currently under the General Retail Industry Award, younger workers are paid less than full adult rate. At 18, it’s 30% less, at 19 it’s 20% and at 20 it’s 10% less.

A Full Bench of the Commission is currently considering the landmark case brought by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Asso-ciation after two weeks of hearings in July. A decision is expected to be handed down in the coming months.

If the SDA’s case is successful, more than 41,000 20-year-old retail workers across the country could get an extra $1.79 per hour in their pay packets. Paying 20-year-olds the full adult rate would be the first step in a phased approach in seeking the adult wage for all workers in the retail industry aged 18 years and over.

Over the two weeks of hearings, the Commission heard evidence from both sides of the debate – workers ar-guing they should be paid the same rate for the same job and the retail lobby groups fighting to pay younger workers less.

SDA National Secretary Joe de Bruyn said the union’s case highlight-ed the inequity in junior rates of pay.

“Paying 18-20 year olds less than the full adult rate is a discriminato-ry and antiquated practice that needs to be rectified for the benefit of all workers,” he said. “At 18, you’re considered an adult everywhere in society, ex-cept in the workplace. It doesn’t make sense and our submissions argued that point.”

Twenty workers gave evidence in support of the SDA’s case, highlighting their experiences in the workplace and illustrating that there is no difference in performance expectation between 18-to-20 year olds and those over 21.

Among the workers to give evidence was Brendan from the ACT, who spoke to the Com-mission about the experience in his workplace.

“There is no difference between the speed of an 18 year old stacking shelves to a 21 year old,” he told the Commission. “Everyone works to-

gether and the expectations are the same across all adult workers.”

Dela, a 22-year-old worker from South Aus-tralia, also took the stand.

“I started at Sanity when I was 20 and was receiving junior rates,” she said. “If I can help out in this way so that other 18-20 year olds can benefit from the work we’ve done, I will be real-ly happy that I’ve been part of creating change.”

The Australian Retail Association led the bulk of the employer submissions in the second week of hearings, attempting to paint younger work-ers as immature, irresponsible and careless – a baseless stereotype quickly dismissed by the workers giving evidence.

The retail groups also argued on economic grounds, saying that it would cost workers’ jobs. However this too was quickly challenged, with the SDA citing a New Zealand Government study showing that since junior rates were re-moved there more than a decade ago, there has been no negative impact on employment rates.

The case for 100% pay for 20 year olds has been backed by both the ACTU and the Federal Government. On the ground, the case has also experienced a groundswell of support with more than 22,000 people signing up to the 100% Pay at 18+ campaign to show their support for fair pay for 18-20 year old workers.

3.org.au

Young workers take their pay fight to Fair Work Commision

At Work

“Paying 18-20 year olds less than the full adult rate is a discriminatory and antiquated practice that needs to be rectified for the benefit of all workers” - Joe De Bruyn

by ALANA MEW

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR 100% PAYSign up to the campaign and spread the word.

Take action at:www.100percentpay.com.au

Photo: Arsineh Houspian

Continued from page 164% saying the main outcome of abolishing penalty rates would be that company prof-its would increase, and only 18% saying companies would employ more workers.

And twice as many people (57%) said abolishing penalty rates would be bad for the economy because workers would have less to spend, than said it would be good for the economy because it would create more jobs (22%).

The ACTU has estimated that between those on awards and collective agree-ments, 4.6 million workers (48.1% of the workforce) are entitled to penalty rates for a public holiday and 4.2 million (44.2%) for a weekend.

“Employers’ big ticket item is to cut penalty rates – which is also an article of

faith for Tony Abbott,” Ms Kearney said. “Penalty rates do not just play an impor-tant role in compensating employees from working unsociable hours. They support consumer demand and economic activi-ty. Rip those billions of dollars out of the economy, and you take tens of thousands of jobs with it.”

In a broad-ranging speech, Ms Kearney also warned that business groups wanted to cut the minimum wage, and would ex-pand the use of individual contracts which would result in the erosion of pay and conditions.

Ms Kearney said the Coalition had deliberately kept these issues out of the spotlight by framing its industrial rela-tions policy in vague terms.

She said the Coalition’s proposed Pro-

ductivity Commission inquiry into the workplace system would pave the way to go beyond what it has outlined in its policy.

Victorian Treasurer Michael O’Brien made a telling admission in a speech on 6 August, when he called for “real industri-al relations reform”, especially widening the use of individual contracts.

Ms Kearney added that the Liberals’ obsession with government debt and aus-terity was both a threat to the economy and to public services.

Ms Kearney said that unions had reg-ular and productive talks with business about the shared goal of lifting economy growth, but the way to lift productivity was not through cutting workers’ pay and conditions.

Payment of penalty ratesQuestion: Some business groups want to abolish penalty rates – higher hourly rates for workers who work outside of normal hours, like night shifts, weekends or public holidays. Do you think people who are required to work outside of normal hours – like night shifts, weekends or public holidays – should receive a higher hourly rate of pay?

TotalVote

Labor

Vote Lib/Nat

VoteGreens

Work full-time

Work part-time

Yes 79% 87% 73% 85% 78% 83%

No 13% 8% 18% 11% 15% 10%

Don’t know 8% 4% 9% 4% 7% 7%

Main result of abolishing penalty ratesQuestion: Do you think the main result of abolishing penalty rates would be that:

TotalVote

Labor

Vote Lib/Nat

VoteGreens

Work full-time

Work part-time

Company profits would increase 64% 79% 54% 72% 65% 69%Companies would employ more workers 18% 7% 28% 19% 20% 11%

Don’t know 17% 14% 18% 9% 15% 20%

Impact on the economy of abolishing penalty ratesQuestion: And do you think abolishing penalty rates would be:

TotalVote

Labor

Vote Lib/Nat

VoteGreens

Work full-time

Work part-time

Good for the economy because it would create more jobs 22% 12% 36% 13% 23% 17%Bad for the economy because workers would have less to spend 57% 70% 43% 70% 60% 60%Don’t know 21% 18% 22% 16% 17% 23%

4 .org.au

This report summarises the results of questions on penalty rates in a weekly omnibus poll conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online from the 1-4 August and is based on 1052 respondents. 100% and subtotals may also vary.

PROTECTPENALTY RATESSend a message to Tony Abbott in support of penalty rates.

Take action at:www.act.australianun-ions.org.au/iheartpen-altyrates

THE global economy is no more stable today than it was six years ago and the scourge of unemployment and inequal-

ity is driving economic instability and social despair.

In 2010, global growth stood at 5% and it was described as the ‘green shoots’ of recov-ery, but in hindsight it was the highlight of concerted action. The International Monetary Fund just last month again revised down global growth projections to a mere 3.1%. No nation is an island in today’s globalised economy.

We are, at best, facing an era of prolonged stagnation. Added to this, the increasing failure of multilateralism must be a call to action for G20 leaders. From the IMF to the UN, the failure to understand that the global economic crisis, caused by greed and inequality, required a social response of equal or greater urgency to that of bailing out the financial sector has gen-erated a tidal wave of mistrust in institutions.

For the state of the world for working people and their families is very bleak. Unemploy-ment is again rising above 200 million and youth unemployment is a problem in every nation. For crisis countries and developing nations facing continuing unemployment with youth unemployment levels of 30% to 60% societal tensions are in ferment.

The International Labour Organisation estimates a need to create 600 million new jobs in the next 10 years. Without a determined approach to rebuilding economies with sus-

tainable jobs and social protection at the core of a coordinated global effort, we are facing an economic and social time bomb.

The ITUC’s new 2013 Global Poll paints a frightening picture. More than half of the world population say their incomes have fallen behind the cost of living, in the last two years.

Almost two out of three people rate the cur-rent economic situation in their country as bad.

Global citizens feel abandoned by their governments because they are seen as failing to tackle unemployment and prioritise business interests over the interests of working families.

Eighty per cent of all respondents say their government has failed to effectively tackle un-employment in their country. Only 13 percent of voters believe their government is focused on the interests of working families.

Over half the world’s population don’t feel they have legal protection for job security. Sixty-six per cent don’t feel they have legal protection for fair wages.

Of critical concern is that only 13% of people feel that their governments are acting in the interest of people and even more worrying almost 30% of people say their governments are not acting in the interests of either people or business.

When you consider this with the 2012 find-ings of the same poll that only 13% of people believe that they have any influence over the economic decisions of their governments, and

Continued on page 6

Massive global unemployment is threatening social stability, and the G20 has one last chance to respond next month, writes Sharan Burrow. The alternative is frightening

G20 must step up to deal with a global crisis

Opinion

5.org.au

Phot

o: fl

ickr

/cad

illac

devi

lle20

00

6 .org.au

Continued from page 5 marry such with increasing social unrest, then the disenchantment and worse the disengage-ment is undermining confidence in democracy. The loss of trust is serious and must be ad-dressed.

Ahead of next month’s summit in Moscow, our message for the G20 is obvious. We need a plan – we need hope. This requires jobs, decent wages and social protection.

Tragically, the demand for jobs has gone un-heeded in terms of co-ordinated action. Despite the anger and frustration we feel concerning the perpetrators of the crisis and equally failed aus-terity policies the reality is we need to rebuild our economies with jobs – income led growth – if we are to secure an inclusive and sustainable global economy.

The ITUC Global Poll 2013 tells us the worlds’ people support a five-point plan towards reducing uncertainty and inequality. They want a plan that offers hope through jobs, fair wages, strong labour laws, a social pro-tection floor, and making large companies pay their taxes.

The serious breakdown in trust of institutions

requires co-ordinated action and with an often chaotic and increasingly ineffectual leadership of the UN, will the G20, step up?

Next year, Australia will assume the presi-dency of the G20 and host its annual meeting in Brisbane.

Will Australia put coordinated action and governance back on the table to ensure jobs, a new investment model, social protection, finan-cial regulation, climate justice and rights or will the G20 simply result in more communiqués and greater loss of trust.

The ITUC, in cooperation with the ACTU here in Australia, as the L(abour)20 will continue to engage with both government and business but a reinvestment by the leaders themselves must drive ambition and implemen-tation to ensure hope.

The alternative is frightening.

Sharan Burrow is General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation and former President of the ACTU. This is an edited extract of a speech she gave to the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney on 1 August 2013.

This election, the choice is clearTHE election to be held on 7 September

will be a choice between a government that respects workers’ rights and

an opposition that wants to give employers more power. Between a government that has acted to protect jobs and an opposition that simply wants to erode rights at work and job security.

Despite the pressures of a hung Parlia-ment, the last three years have seen Labor deliver major policies that benefit workers.

We now have paid parental leave, a plan for better school funding, the foundations of a national disability care scheme, increased superannuation, as well as better pay for community sector and childcare workers.

From the Coalition we have seen negativity and a refusal to be up-front and open about what they would do if elected.

Tony Abbott has done everything he can to paint himself as a “moderate” by being deliberately vague about his real plans for workplaces. He says he will set up an inquiry by the pro-business Productivity Commis-sion before making further changes.

There is no doubt that Tony Abbott will follow the agenda of big business, not the interests of working people, if he is elected.

We will see further erosion of penalty rates and award conditions if he is elected.

Tony Abbott wants to increase the use of

individual contracts, despite the fact that they make it harder for workers to get de-cent pay and conditions.

He will also reduce the ability of workers to have a union represent them in the work-place and reduce the power of the Fair Work Commission.

Tony Abbott will dismantle the rights that protect our pay and conditions.

The Coalition will postpone superannua-tion increases that will deliver more money for workers’ retirement. Tony Abbott has not told Australians how he will make his promised cuts to the federal Budget. Public services are not an inexhaustible source of savings for governments.

Australian unions will be active during this election. We will talk to workers about the issues they face, and we will be campaigning for a future where we value rights at work and invest in jobs and the industries of the future.

We will be talking to people about the choices they face at the ballot box – invest-ment or cuts to public services, protecting or undermining work rights, whether or not we get a boost superannuation so people can look forward to a better retirement.

There is a lot at stake this election and un-ions will continue to campaign alongside our members for a better life for working people.

by GED KEARNEYACTU President

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AT WORKFind out how you can take part in the Australian Unions’ campaign this election.

Take action at:www.australianunions.org.au/election

7.org.au

Ask Us

LIZ asks: My 17-year-old son is employed as a casual in the fast food industry. He worked a weekend and his employer has told him they do not get penalty rates but can have a day off with no pay. I am very confused as I am sure he needs to paid public holiday rates. Isn’t that the law in Victoria?

Being paid the extra amount set down for work-ing unsociable hours (be it weekends, late shifts or public holidays) is meant to make up for having to work when most people are out with friends or spending time with their families.

The Fast Food Industry Modern Award states that penalty rates apply for working on a public holiday.

His boss doesn’t get to pick and choose whether or he wants to pay them or not – he is bound by the terms and conditions in the Award, just as your son is. Offering a day off in lieu of penalty rates is not appropriate compensation – especially not one without pay!

If your son worked a public holiday and

wasn’t paid properly for it, he (or you) should let his boss know in writing.

Work out how much he is owed, and when he expects to receive it.

It’s good idea to send the letter by registered post through a post office. It costs a little bit more, but there will be a record of it having been sent and received. Most importantly of all, don’t forget to keep a copy.

This situation could be a genuine mistake on his employer’s part which is easily rectified.

If not though and he doesn’t get the money he’s owed, then you need to make a complaint through the Fair Work Ombudsman, which is a government department which looks after the area of wages and conditions.

I know it might seem a bit scary and your son might be worried about losing his job (especial-ly if he happens to be a casual worker).

There are protections in place though under the Fair Work Act which make it unlawful for an employer to penalise a staff member (for exam-ple, by cutting shifts) for making a complaint.

Your boss doesn’t get to pick and choose whether he pays pen-alty rates or not - he is bound by the terms and conditions of the Award

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 Austral-ian Unions help-line if you have a problem with your pay, entitlements, health and safety or anything else at work.

Phone 1300 4 UNION (1300 486 466).

What can I do if I don’t get my penalty rates?

Stand up to the workplace bullyMARY-ANNE writes: My manager is coming to me with hearsay about what other work-ers are saying about me. I have just done my appraisal with him and it was a character as-sassination. He says that no one likes me and that I should remember it is in his power to move me on to another area. I am not really comfortable to make a complaint internally.

What a horrible situation to be in.Okay, let’s deal with the hearsay first. What

strikes me is the person who has something to gain from you believing that people are gossip-ing about you is your boss. One of the really effective tools bullies can use is to make their target feel isolated and alone; and what better way to achieve this than to make you think there is no one you can speak to about what’s happen-ing as no one would want to engage with you? It’s such a terrible cliché but the phrase “Take it with a pinch of salt” springs to mind.

Appraisals should be about your work perfor-mance and progress, they shouldn’t be personal-ity based. If he has raised things with which you disagree or which you think are inappropriate

have you thought about responding in writing asking for some clarification? (Remember, you should keep a copy of everything you write.)

I know you say you’re not comfortable mak-ing a complaint internally, but it would be a good idea to look at any grievance procedure in place at work. Does your manager have a man-ager? You have the right to a safe workplace – and that includes one that’s free from harass-ment and bullying. If your manager has a prob-lem with your performance then there are ways that can be raised which don’t leave you feeling personally attacked.

It’s important to establish a diary. Record when he speaks to you badly. How are you cop-ing with this in terms of your health? Why don’t you make an appointment to talk to your GP if you’re starting to feel ill because of this stress.

If you’re a member of the union at your workplace, talk to your delegate. I know at the moment you must feel as if you can’t trust an-yone and everyone is against you – but remem-ber, that’s what your boss wants you to think; talking to your delegate is a really important first step to take.

by RIGHTS WATCH